ArticlePEC innovation2026
The effect of physiotherapists' explanation of therapeutic virtual reality on treatment expectations in healthy people and people with chronic musculoskeletal pain: Two online RCTs.
Article in PEC innovation, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is a disabling condition, for which physiotherapy is a common treatment. Therapeutic virtual reality (VR) is an emerging treatment modality in physiotherapy care for patients with CMP. Treatment expectations of patients regarding therapeutic VR influence its effectiveness and could possibly be enhanced by the therapist by using positive language about therapeutic VR. The aim of the current studies was to explore the effect of physiotherapists explaining VR using positive versus neutral language, on treatment expectations of healthy participants (study 1) and patients with CMP (study 2). Methods: Two web-based, double-blinded RCTs were conducted with two groups (healthy participants and patients with CMP), that were randomly allocated to a video explaining therapeutic VR using positive language or neutral language. The primary outcome measures were treatment credibility and expectancy, assessed at baseline and post-intervention. Between-group differences and within-group changes were respectively analyzed using simple linear regression analyses and repeated measures ANOVAs. All analyses were performed separately for healthy participants and patients with CMP. Results: In total, 127 healthy participants (study 1) and 115 patients with CMP (study 2) were included and randomized. We found no between-group difference in treatment expectations between positive versus neutral language videos, neither in healthy participants nor patients with CMP. We found significant within-group changes for treatment expectations in both conditions (positive and neutral language) in healthy participants, and in the positive language condition only in the CMP group. Conclusions: The studies show that any explanation of therapeutic VR (both using positive or neutral language) seems to improve treatment expectations. Unexpectedly, using positive language was not superior to using neutral language. Future research should examine strategies for healthcare providers to set optimal treatment expectations on therapeutic VR in patients with CMP. Practice implications: A brief verbal explanation about therapeutic VR improves treatment expectations in both healthy participants and patients with CMP.
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.