Virtual, Augmented, Mixed, and Immersive Technologies for Prenatal and Childbirth Education: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Virtual, augmented, mixed, and other immersive technologies, collectively referred to as extended reality (XR), are increasingly used to enhance experiential learning in health education. By creating interactive 3-dimensional or 360° environments, these technologies allow expectant parents to engage in realistic prenatal and childbirth scenarios, promoting emotional preparedness, knowledge acquisition, and confidence. Although XR has been widely studied in clinical training, its application in prenatal and childbirth education for parents remains less systematically explored. Objective: This scoping review aims to map and synthesize the current evidence on the use of virtual, augmented, mixed, and immersive technologies in prenatal and childbirth education, highlighting their educational benefits, methodological approaches, and implementation challenges. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, APA PsycINFO, and APA PsycArticles from inception to October 16, 2025. Search terms included "virtual reality," "augmented reality," "mixed reality," "extended reality," and "immersive technology," combined with prenatal and childbirth education descriptors. Studies were included if they applied immersive or XR technologies to deliver prenatal or childbirth education for expectant parents. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The review was registered on Open Science Framework (OSF). Results: From 1861 records, 11 studies from 8 countries were included, spanning randomized controlled, quasi-experimental, feasibility, and qualitative designs. Interventions comprised head-mounted display-based virtual reality, 360° video, and mixed reality simulations. Outcomes covered psychological, physiological, educational, and experiential domains. Most studies reported feasibility and high engagement, with encouraging signals for reduced anxiety and improved birth preparedness and, in some cases, reductions in pain and intrapartum indicators. No serious adverse events were reported; nausea and discomfort were infrequent and transient. Thematic analysis identified 5 recurring themes: enhanced birth preparedness, realism and presence as a key mechanism, usability barriers and the need for guided facilitation, motivational and educational potential, and limited partner inclusion. Methodological quality was heterogeneous, with small samples, nonstandardized measures, and short follow-up. Conclusions: Evidence for XR in prenatal education is promising yet preliminary. Rigorous multicenter studies with standardized outcomes, longer follow-up, and greater partner involvement, alongside attention to equitable access and digital literacy, are needed to support integration into maternity care pathways.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".