ArticleDigital health
How institutional logics shape the adoption of virtual reality in mental health care: A qualitative study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Multicriteria Decision Analysis for Extended Reality (MCDA-XR) Governance Framework for Health Care Adoption: Mixed Methods Development Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Are virtual reality (VR) interventions for substance use disorders designed for implementation? A rapid review of platform characteristics and clinical fit.Research square · 2026Article
- Understanding frictions in patient-reported outcome-based community healthcare - An institutional logics perspective.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyse institutional logics' role in adopting virtual reality in mental health care. Methods: Data were collected via qualitative, semi-structured interviews with four frontline staff and seven administrative and service staff, two focus group interviews with three frontline staff and four administrative and service staff, and via participant observation in meetings between stakeholders working on virtual reality. Data were collected from May 2021 to February 2022, analysed using thematic analysis, and theoretically driven by the framework of Institutional logics. Results: We identified two different forms of institutional logics being drawn upon by frontline staff and administrative and service staff, respectively, when working with the adoption of virtual reality in mental health care. Frontline staff drew mainly on a Conclusions: By taking institutional logics as our theoretical and analytical point of departure, this study demonstrates how the meaning of virtual reality and its adoption in mental health care is grounded in multiple and sometimes conflicting institutional logics. Acknowledging the existence and influence of often multiple institutional logics in the adoption process is crucial to guide the future adoption of virtual reality in mental health care. Organising collaborative venues for stakeholders where their multiple institutional logics are made the subject of joint reflection is essential to counter frictions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.