Barriers to adopting therapeutic virtual reality: the perspective of clinical psychologists and psychotherapists.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Frontiers in Psychiatry Pub Date : 2025-03-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1549090
Anna Felnhofer, Franziska Pfannerstill, Lisa Gänsler, Oswald D Kothgassner, Elke Humer, Johanna Büttner, Thomas Probst
{"title":"Barriers to adopting therapeutic virtual reality: the perspective of clinical psychologists and psychotherapists.","authors":"Anna Felnhofer, Franziska Pfannerstill, Lisa Gänsler, Oswald D Kothgassner, Elke Humer, Johanna Büttner, Thomas Probst","doi":"10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1549090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of Virtual Reality (VR) for mental disorders, VR adoption in therapy remains low. As VR-technology continues to advance, it is crucial to examine individual and contextual barriers preventing implementation of therapeutic VR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online survey with closed and open-ended questions regarding knowledge of VR, VR-usage and barriers to VR adoption was conducted among clinical psychologists and psychotherapists in Austria (M<sub>age</sub>=51.71 years, 76% women).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 694 participants, only 10 reported using therapeutic VR. Chi-square tests revealed significant differences regarding interest in therapeutic VR based on prior experience, employment status, professional training, and therapeutic cluster. Besides a small age effect, no effects of gender or professional experience were found. Participants interested in VR (interest group, IG) frequently cited barriers and other reasons (see thematic analysis) for not having used VR yet. Those not interested in VR (no interest group, NIG) indicated a lack of relevance, no perceived advantage, or disinterest as reasons for not using VR. Thematic analysis identified four themes shared by both IG and NIG, each encompassing group-specific sub-themes: <i>professional barriers</i> (lack of knowledge, training, time, personal reasons), <i>financial barriers</i> (costs, cost-benefit-ratio), <i>therapeutic barriers</i> (clinical applicability, concerns about \"real\" therapeutic relationship), and <i>technological barriers</i> (immature technology, cybersickness, no equipment).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Significant barriers to the adoption of therapeutic VR among clinical psychologists and psychotherapists are gaps in knowledge and training, financial constraints, and lack of motivation, all of which highlight the need for training and financial support to enhance VR implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12605,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Psychiatry","volume":"16 ","pages":"1549090"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11958971/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1549090","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of Virtual Reality (VR) for mental disorders, VR adoption in therapy remains low. As VR-technology continues to advance, it is crucial to examine individual and contextual barriers preventing implementation of therapeutic VR.

Methods: An online survey with closed and open-ended questions regarding knowledge of VR, VR-usage and barriers to VR adoption was conducted among clinical psychologists and psychotherapists in Austria (Mage=51.71 years, 76% women).

Results: Of 694 participants, only 10 reported using therapeutic VR. Chi-square tests revealed significant differences regarding interest in therapeutic VR based on prior experience, employment status, professional training, and therapeutic cluster. Besides a small age effect, no effects of gender or professional experience were found. Participants interested in VR (interest group, IG) frequently cited barriers and other reasons (see thematic analysis) for not having used VR yet. Those not interested in VR (no interest group, NIG) indicated a lack of relevance, no perceived advantage, or disinterest as reasons for not using VR. Thematic analysis identified four themes shared by both IG and NIG, each encompassing group-specific sub-themes: professional barriers (lack of knowledge, training, time, personal reasons), financial barriers (costs, cost-benefit-ratio), therapeutic barriers (clinical applicability, concerns about "real" therapeutic relationship), and technological barriers (immature technology, cybersickness, no equipment).

Conclusions: Significant barriers to the adoption of therapeutic VR among clinical psychologists and psychotherapists are gaps in knowledge and training, financial constraints, and lack of motivation, all of which highlight the need for training and financial support to enhance VR implementation.

采用治疗性虚拟现实的障碍:临床心理学家和心理治疗师的观点。
背景和目的:尽管有证据支持虚拟现实(VR)对精神障碍的有效性,但VR在治疗中的应用仍然很低。随着VR技术的不断进步,研究阻碍治疗性VR实施的个人和环境障碍至关重要。方法:对奥地利临床心理学家和心理治疗师(年龄51.71岁,76%为女性)进行了一项关于虚拟现实知识、虚拟现实使用和采用虚拟现实障碍的封闭式和开放式在线调查。结果:在694名参与者中,只有10人报告使用了治疗性VR。卡方检验显示,基于先前经验、就业状况、专业培训和治疗集群,对治疗性虚拟现实的兴趣存在显著差异。除了年龄有小的影响外,性别和职业经验没有影响。对VR感兴趣的参与者(兴趣小组,IG)经常提到尚未使用VR的障碍和其他原因(参见专题分析)。那些对虚拟现实不感兴趣的人(没有兴趣小组,NIG)表示缺乏相关性,没有感知到优势,或者不感兴趣是不使用虚拟现实的原因。专题分析确定了IG和NIG共有的四个主题,每个主题都包含了特定小组的子主题:专业障碍(缺乏知识、培训、时间、个人原因)、财务障碍(成本、成本效益比)、治疗障碍(临床适用性、对“真实”治疗关系的担忧)和技术障碍(技术不成熟、晕机、没有设备)。结论:临床心理学家和心理治疗师采用治疗性虚拟现实的主要障碍是知识和培训的差距、资金限制和缺乏动力,所有这些都突出了加强虚拟现实实施的培训和资金支持的必要性。
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
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Frontiers in Psychiatry Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.50%
发文量
2813
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Psychiatry publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research across a wide spectrum of translational, basic and clinical research. Field Chief Editor Stefan Borgwardt at the University of Basel is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. The journal''s mission is to use translational approaches to improve therapeutic options for mental illness and consequently to improve patient treatment outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信