4.5 Review

Virtual reality in psychiatric disorders: A systematic review of reviews

期刊

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2020.102480

关键词

Psychology; Virtual reality; Head-mounted display; Review; Mental health; Exposure therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Virtual reality (VR) is being used more and more often as a therapeutic tool in psychology or psychiatry. In recent years, VR interventions appear more extensively also in disorders such as depression, anxiety and phobia. However, there has yet to be a comprehensive synthesis and critical review of the literature to identify future directions to advance the field in this area. Objectives: To broadly characterize the literature to date on the application of VR in psychiatric disorders by conducting a systematic review of reviews, describe the limitations of existing research, suggest avenues for future research to address gaps in the current literature and provide practical recommendations for incorporating VR into various treatments for psychiatric disorders. Methods: PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for reviews on VR use in psychiatric disorders (e.g. various pain perceptions, post-traumatic stress disorder, phobias, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, psychosis, depression). The methodological quality of each literature review was assessed using AMSTAR. Results: The original search identified 848 reviews, of which 70 were included in the systematic review of reviews. Broadly, the literature indicates that various VR interventions could be useful in different psychiatric disorders. Conclusion: This study provides evidence supporting the positive impact of VR therapy in psychiatric disorders. However, the impact is defined differently according to the studied area. Nevertheless, due to the continuous development of VR hardware and software, it is essential to conduct further research in the area of psychiatric disorders, especially as no review has concluded that VR does not work.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据