MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410918434 · doi:10.2196/72917

Virtual Reality for Analgesia During Intrauterine Device Insertion: Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4410918434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chloe Higgins, Claudia Zecena Morales, Judith Hocking, Kate Tyson, Cheryl Leung, Luke Larmour, Paul Leong, Beverley Vollenhoven

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintVirtual realityRandomized controlled trialMedicineComputer scienceSurgeryWorld Wide WebHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are safe and effective long-acting reversible contraceptive therapies that are also used as minimally invasive treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, endometrial hyperplasia, and early-stage endometrial cancer. Despite many advantages, IUDs are underused predominantly due to patient discomfort. Although many techniques have been explored previously in the literature, there is currently little consensus on effective analgesic strategies. Virtual reality (VR) has demonstrated moderate benefits in acute pain management and has been explored for outpatient hysteroscopy. Objective: This study aims to explore the effectiveness of VR in improving patient pain and anxiety during outpatient IUD insertion. Methods: This randomized controlled trial compared the use of a VR headset to standard care during IUD insertion in the outpatient clinic setting. VR content was delivered via smartphone and headset, providing patients with a relaxing 3D video environment. Outcomes measured were patient-reported pain and anxiety, as well as satisfaction reported using a questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included clinician-reported ease of insertion and time required to complete the procedure. Results: A total of 70 patients were recruited, with 34 randomized to the control group and 36 randomized to VR headset use. Patients with VR headsets reported a mean pain score of 5.5 (SD 3.2) during IUD insertion, which was not significantly different to 4.3 (SD 3.2) for the control group (P=.15). Mean anxiety scores during the procedure were 4 (SD 3) in the VR group, compared to 4.8 (SD 3.5) in the control group, which was also not significantly different (P=.37). Anxiety was the most significant predictor of pain, and this, in turn, significantly increased insertion time (P<.001). Among patients who responded to and benefitted from VR use, baseline anxiety was significantly lower than in those who did not (P<.001). Satisfaction with the use of VR headsets was overall high, and recommendation scores for the use of VR headsets were also high. There were no significant adverse effects experienced with the use of the intervention, with only 1 patient reporting nausea after IUD insertion. Conclusions: The use of VR headsets did not significantly alter the pain or anxiety experienced by patients during IUD insertion; however, satisfaction and recommendation that others use VR were high, which may suggest other benefits to their use. In addition, preprocedural anxiety appears to have a significant adverse impact on pain scores and the ability of patients to benefit from the VR headsets. This is an important contribution to the previously ambiguous data regarding VR use for gynecological procedures and highlights a new avenue for improving the patient experience.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207