SynthesisFrontiers in public health2025
The effectiveness of virtual reality in enhancing mindfulness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of virtual reality mindfulness interventions on depression and anxiety: a meta-analysis.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy of Virtual Reality-Based Mindfulness Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR XR and spatial computing · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, virtual reality (VR) has been increasingly applied in mindfulness training. Although the number of studies in this area has grown rapidly, their quality remains inconsistent. Substantial variations exist across studies in terms of participant populations, modes of VR application, experimental designs, intervention durations, and measurement instruments, which in turn have led to divergent findings. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis is warranted to synthesize the existing evidence, evaluate the robustness of current findings, and provide guidance for future research and clinical applications. Methods: A meta-analytic approach was employed, incorporating 25 studies published in both Chinese and English with a total sample of 1,485 participants. A random-effects model was applied, and Hedges' g was used as the effect size metric to evaluate the effectiveness of VR in enhancing mindfulness. The study also examined the potential moderating effects of participant characteristics, modes of VR implementation, experimental designs, intervention durations, and measurement instruments. Results: (1) VR interventions significantly enhanced mindfulness, with a large effect size (Hedges' g = 0.975). (2) The effectiveness of VR-based mindfulness training was moderated by usage mode and participants' health status. Fully immersive VR demonstrated greater benefits than active-interaction VR. Participants with mental health disorders experienced greater improvements compared to healthy individuals, whereas those with chronic physical conditions showed no significant effects. (3) No significant moderating effects were observed for experimental design, intervention duration, or measurement instruments. Discussion: The findings of this study contribute to the theoretical foundation of mindfulness training and offer practical implications for the design of future VR-based interventions. Specifically, the results suggest that prioritizing the development of highly immersive, low-interaction, and nature-friendly virtual environments may enhance the effectiveness of VR interventions.
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.