Powers Mark B, Emmelkamp Paul M G
Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Anxiety Disord. 2008;22(3):561-9. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.04.006. Epub 2007 Apr 27.
There is now a substantial literature investigating virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) as a viable treatment option for anxiety disorders. In this meta-analysis we provide effect size estimates for virtual reality treatment in comparison to in vivo exposure and control conditions (waitlist, attention control, etc.). A comprehensive search of the literature identified 13 studies (n=397) that were included in the final analyses. Consistent with prediction the primary random effects analysis showed a large mean effect size for VRET compared to control conditions, Cohen's d=1.11 (S.E.=0.15, 95% CI: 0.82-1.39). This finding was consistent across secondary outcome categories as well (domain-specific, general subjective distress, cognition, behavior, and psychophysiology). Also as expected in vivo treatment was not significantly more effective than VRET. In fact, there was a small effect size favoring VRET over in vivo conditions, Cohen's d=0.35 (S.E.=0.15, 95% CI: 0.05-0.65). There was a trend for a dose-response relationship with more VRET sessions showing larger effects (p=0.06). Outcome was not related to publication year or sample size. Implications are discussed.
目前有大量文献研究虚拟现实暴露疗法(VRET)作为焦虑症可行的治疗选择。在这项荟萃分析中,我们提供了与现场暴露和对照条件(等待名单、注意力控制等)相比,虚拟现实治疗的效应量估计。对文献的全面检索确定了13项研究(n = 397)纳入最终分析。与预测一致,主要随机效应分析显示,与对照条件相比,VRET的平均效应量较大,Cohen's d = 1.11(标准误 = 0.15,95%置信区间:0.82 - 1.39)。这一发现也在次要结果类别(特定领域、一般主观痛苦、认知、行为和心理生理学)中一致。同样如预期的那样,现场治疗并不比VRET显著更有效。事实上,与现场条件相比,有一个小的效应量支持VRET,Cohen's d = 0.35(标准误 = 0.15,95%置信区间:0.05 - 0.65)。存在剂量 - 反应关系的趋势,更多的VRET疗程显示出更大的效果(p = 0.06)。结果与发表年份或样本量无关。讨论了其意义。