ArticleScientific reports2025
Exploring healthcare providers' perceptions of virtual reality in lung cancer treatment preparedness: a mixed-methods feasibility study for the development of EveryBreathMatters.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined healthcare providers' perceptions of the benefits, challenges, and design preferences for Virtual Reality (VR)-based interventions to support treatment preparedness in lung cancer care. Our study involves 50 surveys and 10 interview responses, in a mixed-method design. We conducted descriptive statistics and thematic analysis through a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. Analysis of the quantitative data helped us capture demographic characteristics, VR familiarity, and perceived VR usefulness. Qualitative analysis gave us a deeper understanding of the VR tool design and Implementation. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact tests were used to assess associations, while thematic analysis was conducted on interview transcripts. Only 28% of respondents were familiar with virtual reality. However, many of them admitted to its promise in potentially improving understanding (70%), managing expectations (56%), and engagement in care (68%). The respondents identified several challenges to VR use, including discomfort with technology (74%), usability-related issues (92%), and accessibility limitations (64%). They preferred that the content have short, video-based modules integrating multimodality of delivery (e.g., audio, avatars). Providers supported flexible delivery models that integrated both in-clinic and at-home delivery modes, emphasizing the importance of provider training and patient technical support. It is noteworthy that the respondents' perceptions of VR usefulness were not associated with their demographic and specialty characteristics. Our findings provide valuable insight into the design of equitable and provider-informed VR tools, highlighting the need for real-world testing and Implementation, especially in cancer care.
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.