Abstract
The inclusion of digital therapeutics (eg, virtual reality [VR] systems) for the management of pain and anxiety associated with routine acutely painful medical procedures may have a substantial impact on treatment adherence and improve long-term health outcomes among young patients. To determine whether a VR intervention decreases pain and anxiety among patients undergoing peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) placement compared with standard care in the pediatric setting. This randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 12, 2017, to July 24, 2019, among 107 patients aged 10 to 21 years who were undergoing PIVC placement in 2 clinical settings (a radiology department and an infusion center) at an urban pediatric academic medical center in the US. Patients, caregivers, and clinicians completed pre-PIVC and post-PIVC placement questionnaires measuring patient pain, anxiety, and anxiety sensitivity; only participants with complete data from before and after PIVC placment were included in the analyses. Patients were randomized to receive standard care (simple distraction techniques [eg, music, coloring, singing, and talking] and the application of numbing cream) or a VR intervention using a balanced computer-generated randomization scheme stratified by sex. All patients who received the VR intervention were offered concurrent standard care; however, VR plus standard care was not specifically examined. Primary outcomes were patient pain (measured by the Faces Pain Scale-Revised) and anxiety (measured by a visual analogue scale) reported by the patient, caregiver, and clinician after PIVC placement. Outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear modeling with backward stepwise selection for final model building. A total of 107 patients (median age, 14.7 years [interquartile range, 12.8-16.9 years]; 63 male participants [58.9%]) completed the clinical trial; 54 patients received standard care, and 53 patients also received the VR intervention. Patients who received the VR intervention compared with standard care had significantly lower mean post-PIVC anxiety scores when patient-reported (1.85 points [95% CI, 1.28-2.41 points] vs 3.14 points [95% CI, 2.59-3.68 points]; P < .001) and clinician-reported (2.04 points [95% CI, 1.37-2.71 points] vs 3.34 points [95% CI, 2.69-3.99 points]; P = .002). Patients in the VR group vs the standard care group also had significantly lower mean post-PIVC pain scores when patient-reported (1.34 points [95% CI, 0.63-2.05 points] vs 2.54 points [95% CI, 1.78-3.30 points]; P = .002), caregiver-reported (1.87 points [95% CI, 0.99-2.76 points] vs 3.01 points [95% CI. 1.98-4.03 points]; P = .04), and clinician-reported (2.05 points [95% CI, 1.47-2.63 points] vs 3.59 points [95% CI, 2.97-4.22 points]; P < .001). Aside from lower levels of baseline pain and anxiety, no demographic variables among patients in the VR group were associated with lower levels of post-PIVC pain and anxiety. In this randomized clinical trial, patients undergoing PIVC placement who received a VR intervention experienced significantly less anxiety and pain compared with those who received standard care. The use of patient, caregiver, and clinician data provided a variety of subjective information, as well as observable and objective data regarding perceived pain and anxiety beyond patient reporting alone. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: CHLA-15-00549.
Highlights
Immersive virtual reality (VR) technologies have continued to evolve over the past 20 years
Patients who received the VR intervention compared with standard care had significantly lower mean post-peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) anxiety scores when patient-reported (1.85 points [95% CI, 1.28-2.41 points] vs 3.14 points [95% CI, 2.59-3.68 points]; P < .001) and clinicianreported (2.04 points [95% CI, 1.37-2.71 points] vs 3.34 points [95% CI, 2.69-3.99 points]; P = .002)
There has been substantial expansion in the use of VR interventions in health care settings, the scientific evidence continues to lag behind advancements in technologies and software; relatively little is known regarding which patients may benefit from VR interventions and which procedures are best suited for incorporating VR systems
Summary
Immersive virtual reality (VR) technologies have continued to evolve over the past 20 years. The VR experience capitalizes on multisensory integration to transport the individual into computersimulated worlds. It has been asserted that immersive VR environments may provide more effective therapeutic interventions than standard practices (eg, bubbles, pinwheels, videos, and books) for the management of procedural pain and anxiety because of the combination of attentional demands and other cortical systems involved in VR gameplay.[1]. The heterogeneity of VR systems and environments has produced mixed scientific findings stemming from the inability of evidence-based evaluations to keep pace with continuously evolving technological innovations.[3,4] there has been substantial expansion in the use of VR interventions in health care settings, the scientific evidence continues to lag behind advancements in technologies and software; relatively little is known regarding which patients may benefit from VR interventions and which procedures are best suited for incorporating VR systems
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.