Combining Virtual Reality and Hypnosis? A User Experience Study in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Following Stem Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple myeloma (MM) and stem cell transplantation (SCT) significantly impact patients' quality of life. Virtual reality with hypnosis (VRH) has emerged as a promising nonpharmacological intervention to address these challenges, yet data on its acceptability and user experience remain scarce. This study assessed the acceptability and user experience of a VRH intervention among adult patients with MM who had undergone allogeneic SCT. Participants used a VRH application and rated their experience through standardized questionnaires and semistructured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and qualitative data underwent descriptive content analysis. Findings indicated high patients' satisfaction, strong perceived relevance, and low cybersickness. Qualitative analysis revealed perceived emotional and psychological benefits. VRH was deemed particularly suitable during hospitalization and treatment periods. This study shows the potential of combining virtual reality and hypnosis for MM patients following SCT. Indeed, they showed high satisfaction levels, paving the way for further studies evaluating the clinical efficacy of such interventions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".