比较虚拟现实与增强现实在促进 COVID-19 自我检测、疫苗接种和预防行为方面的作用。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
DIGITAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2024-08-02 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20552076241269587
Zhan Xu, Linda Dam
{"title":"比较虚拟现实与增强现实在促进 COVID-19 自我检测、疫苗接种和预防行为方面的作用。","authors":"Zhan Xu, Linda Dam","doi":"10.1177/20552076241269587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) are innovative technologies that can serve as effective tools for creating health interventions by altering psychological distance. Based on construal level theory and the reality-virtuality continuum, we designed, tested, and compared VR and AR campaigns to encourage proactive measures against COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>143 participants were randomly assigned to one of three messages: VR, AR, and a CDC video, and completed surveys before, immediately, and one week following message exposure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>VR and AR increased preventive intentions and behaviors against COVID-19 both in the short and long run. VR was particularly effective as it also increased risk perceptions, more preventive intentions in the short term, and more preventive behaviors, including social distancing and mask wearing, in the long term. VR was more efficient than AR in enhancing risk perceptions and preventive intentions right after being exposed to the messages as well as promoting behaviors such as avoiding crowds, maintaining social distance from others, and wearing a mask in indoor public areas one week later. Moreover, among the three conditions, VR was the only intervention that generated actual behavior change after one week, which indicated potential long-term advantages of VR compared to other mediums. VR decreased social, spatial, and hypothetical distances to a greater degree than AR. VR was more effective than video. However, AR was not more persuasive than video.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Insights gained from the findings extend beyond the pandemic phase, offering practical applications for employing VR and AR technologies in health campaigns.</p>","PeriodicalId":51333,"journal":{"name":"DIGITAL HEALTH","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11297516/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing virtual reality vs. augmented reality in promoting COVID-19 self-testing, vaccination, and preventive behaviors.\",\"authors\":\"Zhan Xu, Linda Dam\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20552076241269587\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) are innovative technologies that can serve as effective tools for creating health interventions by altering psychological distance. Based on construal level theory and the reality-virtuality continuum, we designed, tested, and compared VR and AR campaigns to encourage proactive measures against COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>143 participants were randomly assigned to one of three messages: VR, AR, and a CDC video, and completed surveys before, immediately, and one week following message exposure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>VR and AR increased preventive intentions and behaviors against COVID-19 both in the short and long run. VR was particularly effective as it also increased risk perceptions, more preventive intentions in the short term, and more preventive behaviors, including social distancing and mask wearing, in the long term. VR was more efficient than AR in enhancing risk perceptions and preventive intentions right after being exposed to the messages as well as promoting behaviors such as avoiding crowds, maintaining social distance from others, and wearing a mask in indoor public areas one week later. Moreover, among the three conditions, VR was the only intervention that generated actual behavior change after one week, which indicated potential long-term advantages of VR compared to other mediums. VR decreased social, spatial, and hypothetical distances to a greater degree than AR. VR was more effective than video. However, AR was not more persuasive than video.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Insights gained from the findings extend beyond the pandemic phase, offering practical applications for employing VR and AR technologies in health campaigns.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DIGITAL HEALTH\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11297516/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DIGITAL HEALTH\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241269587\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIGITAL HEALTH","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241269587","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:虚拟现实(VR)和增强现实(AR)是一种创新技术,可作为通过改变心理距离来制定健康干预措施的有效工具。基于构想水平理论和现实-虚拟连续体,我们设计、测试并比较了虚拟现实和增强现实宣传活动,以鼓励人们采取积极措施应对 COVID-19:方法:143 名参与者被随机分配到三种信息中的一种:VR、AR 和疾控中心视频,并在信息曝光前、曝光后一周内完成调查:结果:无论是从短期还是长期来看,VR 和 AR 都增强了人们对 COVID-19 的预防意向和行为。VR 尤其有效,因为它还提高了风险意识,在短期内增加了预防意向,在长期内增加了预防行为,包括拉开社交距离和佩戴口罩。与 AR 相比,VR 能更有效地在接触信息后立即增强风险意识和预防意向,并在一周后促进避开人群、与他人保持社交距离和在室内公共场所佩戴口罩等行为。此外,在三种情况中,VR 是唯一一种在一周后产生实际行为改变的干预措施,这表明与其他媒介相比,VR 具有潜在的长期优势。与 AR 相比,VR 在更大程度上减少了社交、空间和假设距离。VR 比视频更有效。结论:从研究结果中获得的启示超越了大流行阶段,为在健康宣传活动中使用 VR 和 AR 技术提供了实际应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing virtual reality vs. augmented reality in promoting COVID-19 self-testing, vaccination, and preventive behaviors.

Objective: Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) are innovative technologies that can serve as effective tools for creating health interventions by altering psychological distance. Based on construal level theory and the reality-virtuality continuum, we designed, tested, and compared VR and AR campaigns to encourage proactive measures against COVID-19.

Methods: 143 participants were randomly assigned to one of three messages: VR, AR, and a CDC video, and completed surveys before, immediately, and one week following message exposure.

Results: VR and AR increased preventive intentions and behaviors against COVID-19 both in the short and long run. VR was particularly effective as it also increased risk perceptions, more preventive intentions in the short term, and more preventive behaviors, including social distancing and mask wearing, in the long term. VR was more efficient than AR in enhancing risk perceptions and preventive intentions right after being exposed to the messages as well as promoting behaviors such as avoiding crowds, maintaining social distance from others, and wearing a mask in indoor public areas one week later. Moreover, among the three conditions, VR was the only intervention that generated actual behavior change after one week, which indicated potential long-term advantages of VR compared to other mediums. VR decreased social, spatial, and hypothetical distances to a greater degree than AR. VR was more effective than video. However, AR was not more persuasive than video.

Conclusions: Insights gained from the findings extend beyond the pandemic phase, offering practical applications for employing VR and AR technologies in health campaigns.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
DIGITAL HEALTH
DIGITAL HEALTH Multiple-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
302
×
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