ArticleJMIR XR and spatial computing2026
Evaluating the Effects of Clinician Prescribing and Implementation Materials on Adoption of Virtual Reality Therapeutics: Randomized Feasibility Pilot Study.
Article in JMIR XR and spatial computing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Virtual reality therapeutics (VRx) are emerging as a form of digital therapeutics (DTx) with growing evidence for improving symptoms such as anxiety, pain, and distress. However, real-world adoption remains limited because successful use depends not only on the therapeutic benefits but also on how the intervention is introduced, supported, and integrated into care, in addition to the therapeutic benefits. Existing literature has identified barriers related to clinician familiarity, prescribing pathways, onboarding, and independent use outside the clinic, but few studies have experimentally evaluated how implementation strategies influence early adoption outcomes. Objective: This feasibility pilot study evaluated how different implementation strategies influence early adoption of a VRx intervention in a nonclinical setting by comparing unguided VRx use, self-directed VRx use with implementation materials, and VRx use with prescriber-led consultation and support. Methods: An institutional review board-approved, 3-arm randomized feasibility pilot study was conducted following the Virtual Reality Clinical Outcomes Research Experts framework and reported using the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 extension guidelines for pilot and feasibility studies. Participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 experimental conditions. Outcomes included technology acceptance, usability, fidelity, and tolerability. Quantitative measures were complemented by qualitative exit interviews. Analyses were exploratory, and the study was not powered for hypothesis testing. Results: Across conditions, brief VRx exposure was associated with significant improvements in overall technology acceptance ( Conclusions: This study demonstrates that implementation strategy is a key determinant of adoption for virtual reality-based DTx. By experimentally isolating onboarding and provider support components, this work extends prior efficacy-focused research to address implementation design. Findings suggest that brief provider involvement and structured onboarding may enhance engagement and adherence, supporting future evaluation of scalable DTx implementation models in clinical and community settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.