Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40173138›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Clinician perspectives on virtual reality use in physical therapy practice in the United States.

Danielle T Felsberg, Jared T McGuirt, Scott E Ross, Louisa D Raisbeck, Charlend K Howard, Christopher K Rhea

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Danielle T FelsbergDepartment of Kinesiology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, United States of America.
Jared T McGuirtDepartment of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, United States of America.
Scott E RossDepartment of Kinesiology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, United States of America.
Louisa D RaisbeckDepartment of Kinesiology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, United States of America.
Charlend K HowardEllmer College of Health Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, United States of America.
Christopher K RheaEllmer College of Health Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7256-4508

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The primary goal of physical rehabilitation is to assess movement impairments and restore function to improve overall quality of life. Virtual reality (VR) may provide the optimal environment to promote these goals due to its motivating and modifiable nature which can be difficult to accomplish through traditional real-world therapeutic methods. Current research of VR for rehabilitation has demonstrated that VR interventions can produce clinically meaningful change in motor outcomes. Despite this, adoption and usage of VR by physical therapy professionals is unclear due to the limited research in this area. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify the current usage and perspectives of VR in physical rehabilitation among physical therapy professionals. Physical Therapists (PTs) and Physical Therapist Assistants (PTAs) in the United States were recruited to participate in this survey-based study. A total of N = 658 participants completed the survey, which consisted of demographic information followed by the Assessing Determinants Of Prospective Take-up of Virtual Reality (ADOPT-VR2) survey that assesses 12 constructs (e.g., Attitudes, Perceived Usefulness, Facilitating Conditions and Barriers) related to the use of VR in clinical settings. Most respondents reported not using VR in clinical practice (n = 611; 92.9%). For all respondents, the constructs of Attitudes, Perceived Ease of Use, Compatibility, Client Influence, and Self-Efficacy were found to statistically contribute to the prediction of Behavioral Intention to use VR (p < .05). However, for those clinicians using VR in their clinical practice, Superior Influence and Perceived Behavioral Control were significant positive predictors for intention to use VR. Future investigation should aim to test strategies to target these factors significantly influencing VR use to further address the gap between evidence and clinical practice in the use of VR for physical rehabilitation interventions.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPhysical TherapistsPhysical Therapy ModalitiesVirtual RealityAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40173138
PMCPMC11964245

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.