Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34642416›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Effects of virtual reality v. biophilic environments on pain and distress in oncology patients: a case-crossover pilot study.

L Ashley Verzwyvelt, Ann McNamara, Xiaohui Xu, Renee Stubbins

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Biophilic Experience-Based Residential Hybrid Framework.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. An Analysis of Theoretical Perspectives in Research on Nature-Based Interventions and Pain.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

L Ashley VerzwyveltHouston Methodist Hospital, Cancer Center, 6445 Main St., 24th Floor, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Ann McNamaraDepartment of Visualization, Texas A&M University, 3137 TAMU C108, College Station, TX, 77840, USA.
Xiaohui XuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Texas A&M University, 212 Adriance Lab Road, College Station, TX, 77843, USA.
Renee StubbinsHouston Methodist Hospital, Cancer Center Infusion, 6445 Main St., 21st Floor, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. restubbins@houstonmethodist.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This pilot study aimed to determine if a biophilic Green Therapy or Virtual Reality environment can decrease an oncology patient's pain and distress while receiving chemotherapy. A case-crossover pilot study was conducted in a comprehensive cancer infusion center. 33 participants with breast, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, pancreatic and prostate cancers were all included in three rooms in a random order at different cycles: control room, Green Therapy room, and Virtual Reality room to receive chemotherapy, respectively. Participants' pain, distress, heart rate, blood pressure, and saliva cortisol were measured before and after infusion in each room. No statistical significance differences were shown in the changes of heart rate, systolic, or diastolic blood pressure, saliva cortisol, pain, or distress before and after infusion between the control, Green Therapy, and Virtual Reality rooms. However, more patients reported the experience as "fun" and "enjoyable" when they were in Green Therapy or Virtual reality room as compared to in the control room. Additionally, since participating in the study, 14 patients reported spending at least 30 min or more outside in nature. In this study, we found that patients' heart rate, blood pressure, and self-reported distress levels were reduced after each biophilic intervention although results are not statistically significant. The study also suggested that biophilic interventions are safe and feasible and may complement the standard of care for oncology patients.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnxietyCancer PainCross-Over StudiesDrug TherapyFacility Design and ConstructionFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsNeoplasm StagingPain Measurement

Identifiers

PMID34642416
PMCPMC8511009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.