Browning Matthew, McAnirlin Olivia, Li Fu, Bertrand Jeffrey, Davis Denise, Madathil Kapil, Mau George Fredric, Henry Gomez Teny
Virtual Reality and Nature Lab, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, 515 Calhoun Drive, Clemson, SC, 29631, United States, 1 864 656 3400.
Department of Industrial Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
JMIR Form Res. 2025 Jul 29;9:e73506. doi: 10.2196/73506.
Virtual reality (VR) interventions are increasingly used in health care settings to improve patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs are commonly evaluated at weekly intervals with data collected via digital surveys. While weekly assessments have benefits, VR devices enable more frequent in-device data collection. It remains unclear whether PROs collected more frequently provide more information on these interventions than PROs collected more infrequently.
This pilot study explored differences between daily and weekly PRO data collection in a VR intervention with nature imagery, with and without guided imagery, among patients with cancer.
Patients with cancer (n=8) were randomly assigned to one of four intervention groups: (1) virtual reality-assisted guided imagery (VRAGI), (2) VR without guided imagery, (3) desktop VR with guided imagery, or (4) desktop VR without guided imagery. Devices were mailed to participants' homes for 15-20 minutes of daily use over 3 weeks. Weekly outcomes (pain, anxiety, depression, and well-being) were assessed using items from the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Daily outcomes were captured via in-device pre-post surveys. Data were analyzed descriptively, using visual trend comparisons to explore patterns.
Of 41 patients who consented, 8 provided complete and usable data. Weekly outcomes showed no consistent trends. In contrast, daily data revealed more nuanced patterns, such as early symptom relief, plateaus, and "double-bottom" effects. The addition of guided imagery did not consistently enhance outcomes beyond VR alone, although the VRAGI condition showed the greatest improvement in well-being. Given the small sample size, these findings should be considered exploratory.
This pilot study suggests that daily PRO data might offer richer insight into intervention effects than weekly assessments. Further research with larger samples is needed to confirm these patterns.
虚拟现实（VR）干预在医疗环境中越来越多地用于改善患者报告结局（PROs）。PROs通常通过数字调查收集数据，每周进行评估。虽然每周评估有其益处，但VR设备能够更频繁地在设备内收集数据。目前尚不清楚更频繁收集的PROs是否比不那么频繁收集的PROs能提供更多关于这些干预措施的信息。
本试点研究探讨了在有或没有引导想象的情况下，针对癌症患者进行的自然意象VR干预中，每日和每周收集PRO数据之间的差异。
癌症患者（n = 8）被随机分配到四个干预组之一：（1）虚拟现实辅助引导想象（VRAGI），（2）无引导想象的VR，（3）有引导想象的桌面VR，或（4）无引导想象的桌面VR。设备被邮寄到参与者家中，为期3周，每天使用15 - 20分钟。使用埃德蒙顿症状评估量表中的项目评估每周结局（疼痛、焦虑、抑郁和幸福感）。每日结局通过设备内的前后调查获取。数据采用描述性分析，通过视觉趋势比较来探索模式。
在41名同意参与的患者中，8名提供了完整且可用的数据。每周结局未显示出一致的趋势。相比之下，每日数据揭示了更细微的模式，如早期症状缓解、平稳期和“双底”效应。尽管VRAGI组在幸福感方面改善最大，但添加引导想象并没有始终如一地比单独使用VR更能增强结局。鉴于样本量较小，这些发现应被视为探索性的。
本试点研究表明，每日收集的PRO数据可能比每周评估更能深入了解干预效果。需要更大样本的进一步研究来证实这些模式。
