Characterizing Consumer Smartphone Apps for Virtual Reality-Based Exposure Therapy: Content Analysis.

Abstract

In vivo exposure therapy is the most effective treatment for phobias but is often impractical. Virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) can help overcome critical barriers to in vivo exposure therapy. However, accessible mobile software related to VRET is not well understood. The purpose of our study is to describe the landscape of accessible smartphone apps with potential utility for clinical VRET. We conducted a content analysis of publicly available smartphone apps related to virtual reality on the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store as of March 2020. The initial search yielded 525 apps, with 84 apps (52 on the Google Play Store and 32 on the Apple App Store) included for analysis. The most common phobic stimulus depicted was bodies of water or weather events (25/84, 29.8%), followed by heights (24/84, 28.6%), and animals (23/84, 27.4%). More than half of the apps were visually abstract (39/84, 53.5%). Most apps were free to use (48/84, 57.1%), while the rest were free to try (22/84, 26.2%) or required payment for use (14/84, 16.7%), with the highest cost for use being US $6. The average overall app rating was 2.9 stars out of 5, but the number of ratings ranged from 0 to 49,233. None of the 84 apps advertised compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, offered the ability to monitor data, provided clinician control over variables in the app experiences, or explicitly stated use by or development with clinicians. None of the smartphone apps reviewed were explicitly developed for phobia therapy. However, 16 of the 84 included apps were considered ideal candidates to investigate further as part of treatment due to their accessibility, depiction of phobia-relevant stimuli, low or no cost, and high user scores. Most of these apps were visually abstract and free to use, making them accessible and potentially flexible as part of clinical exposure hierarchies. However, none of the apps were designed for clinical use, nor did they provide tools for clinician workflows. Formal evaluation of these accessible smartphone apps is needed to understand the clinical potential of accessible VRET solutions.