Immersive Technologies in Forensic Mental Health and Prison Settings: Scoping Review.

Abstract

Background: The application of immersive technologies, particularly virtual reality, has expanded rapidly across health care domains, including mental health, rehabilitation, and education. These technologies enable the creation of controlled, interactive, and ecologically valid environments that can support therapeutic interventions, skill development, and behavioral assessment. Within forensic mental health services (FMHS) and prison settings, where individuals often present with complex psychological needs in restrictive and highly regulated environments, immersive technologies offer potential advantages such as safe simulation of real-world scenarios, enhanced engagement, and personalized intervention delivery. However, despite increasing interest, the evidence base remains fragmented, and questions persist regarding effectiveness, ethical implications, and feasibility of implementation in secure and resource-constrained contexts.

Objective: Interest in immersive technologies in FMHS and prison settings is growing, yet their role remains unclear. This scoping review mapped current uses, highlighted opportunities, and identified key gaps and considerations for future implementation.

Methods: A scoping review of English-language publications (2010-2025) was conducted using the Scopus, PubMed, and CINAHL databases. Data extraction followed the Joanna Briggs Institute framework, and thematic analysis explored benefits, drawbacks, and implementation barriers.

Results: Thirty sources were identified. Primary research focused mainly on virtual reality for therapy, skill training, education, and assessment. There was evidence suggesting benefits such as increased engagement, emotional regulation, skill acquisition, autonomy, and improved clinician-patient dialogue. However, the studies were small, heterogeneous, and inconsistently reported, with limited long-term follow-up. Implementation barriers included institutional, ethical, and technical constraints and limited personalization and end user involvement. Co-design and participatory approaches surfaced as key enablers of acceptability, relevance, and safe use.

Conclusions: The existing evidence base is preliminary and exploratory but indicates that immersive technologies may have potential value in FMHS and prison contexts. Current findings should be interpreted cautiously because studies are small, heterogeneous, and rarely include long-term follow-up. More robust evidence, careful implementation, and meaningful end user input are needed to support safe, relevant, ethical, and effective use. The emphasis on coproduction and guidance for safe, user-centered implementation is a novel contribution.