Ethical considerations in implementing virtual reality programs in long-term care settings: Case studies from in Canada and the Czech Republic

Q3 Medicine

Ethics, Medicine and Public Health Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101074

L. Hung , V. Suchomelová , K. Diallo , J.O.Y. Wong , L.H. Ren

{"title":"Ethical considerations in implementing virtual reality programs in long-term care settings: Case studies from in Canada and the Czech Republic","authors":"L. Hung , V. Suchomelová , K. Diallo , J.O.Y. Wong , L.H. Ren","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Virtual Reality (VR) presents opportunities for improving the quality of life of older adults living in long-term care (LTC) homes. While current research primarily examines the feasibility of VR implementation, there remains a lack of studies addressing the ethical considerations pertinent to older adults residing in care settings.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>Drawing upon case studies from LTC settings in Canada and the Czech Republic, this paper compares common challenges and unique ethical issues associated with VR implementation. We employ a human rights-based approach to discuss lessons learned in the two countries and implications for further research and development of VR interventions for LTC residents.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Our reflection focuses on lessons learnt: 1) LTC residents have restricted access to benefits from VR in LTC, 2) risk aversion culture in LTC, 3) involvement of LTC residents in VR development and adoption, 4) cultural relevance, 5) ageism and exclusion, and 6) respecting the right to decline VR. The reflection underscores the importance of engaging relevant partners (residents, families, care partners, leadership teams, industrial partners, and researchers) to develop implementation plans and create collective ownership of the virtual reality program.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Continuous team reflections on the design process, technology uptake, and implementation are crucial in ensuring residents’ well-being, equity, and cultural sensitivity in adopting technology in LTC. Informed by the reflection, we developed six practical strategies focusing on Access, Balance, Connection, Diversity, Engagement and Freedom to say no, acronymized as ABCDEF. Future research should explore system support, policies, and guidelines to support the ethical use of virtual reality in LTC settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101074"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552525000337","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Virtual Reality (VR) presents opportunities for improving the quality of life of older adults living in long-term care (LTC) homes. While current research primarily examines the feasibility of VR implementation, there remains a lack of studies addressing the ethical considerations pertinent to older adults residing in care settings.

Method

Drawing upon case studies from LTC settings in Canada and the Czech Republic, this paper compares common challenges and unique ethical issues associated with VR implementation. We employ a human rights-based approach to discuss lessons learned in the two countries and implications for further research and development of VR interventions for LTC residents.

Results

Our reflection focuses on lessons learnt: 1) LTC residents have restricted access to benefits from VR in LTC, 2) risk aversion culture in LTC, 3) involvement of LTC residents in VR development and adoption, 4) cultural relevance, 5) ageism and exclusion, and 6) respecting the right to decline VR. The reflection underscores the importance of engaging relevant partners (residents, families, care partners, leadership teams, industrial partners, and researchers) to develop implementation plans and create collective ownership of the virtual reality program.

Conclusion

Continuous team reflections on the design process, technology uptake, and implementation are crucial in ensuring residents’ well-being, equity, and cultural sensitivity in adopting technology in LTC. Informed by the reflection, we developed six practical strategies focusing on Access, Balance, Connection, Diversity, Engagement and Freedom to say no, acronymized as ABCDEF. Future research should explore system support, policies, and guidelines to support the ethical use of virtual reality in LTC settings.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在长期护理环境中实施虚拟现实项目的伦理考虑：来自加拿大和捷克共和国的案例研究

虚拟现实（VR）为改善生活在长期护理（LTC）家中的老年人的生活质量提供了机会。虽然目前的研究主要是研究虚拟现实实施的可行性，但仍然缺乏研究解决与居住在护理机构中的老年人相关的伦理问题。方法通过对加拿大和捷克共和国LTC环境的案例研究，本文比较了与VR实施相关的共同挑战和独特的伦理问题。我们采用基于人权的方法来讨论两国的经验教训，以及对LTC居民VR干预措施进一步研究和开发的影响。结果我们的反思主要集中在经验教训上：1)LTC居民从LTC中获得的利益受到限制，2)LTC的风险规避文化，3)LTC居民参与VR的发展和采用，4)文化相关性，5)年龄歧视和排斥，6)尊重拒绝VR的权利。反思强调了让相关合作伙伴（居民、家庭、护理合作伙伴、领导团队、工业合作伙伴和研究人员）参与制定实施计划和创建虚拟现实项目集体所有权的重要性。团队对设计过程、技术吸收和实施的持续反思对于确保LTC采用技术时居民的福祉、公平和文化敏感性至关重要。通过反思，我们制定了六项实用策略，重点是准入、平衡、联系、多样性、参与和自由说不，缩写为ABCDEF。未来的研究应该探索系统支持、政策和指导方针，以支持在LTC环境中道德地使用虚拟现实。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Ethics, Medicine and Public Health Medicine-Health Policy

CiteScore

2.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

107

审稿时长

42 days

期刊介绍： This review aims to compare approaches to medical ethics and bioethics in two forms, Anglo-Saxon (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health) and French (Ethique, Médecine et Politiques Publiques). Thus, in their native languages, the authors will present research on the legitimacy of the practice and appreciation of the consequences of acts towards patients as compared to the limits acceptable by the community, as illustrated by the democratic debate.