ArticleDigital health
A qualitative pilot study examining the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual reality delivered intervention for opioid use disorder.
Article in Digital health. 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
Introduction: This qualitative pilot study examined the acceptability of a virtual reality (VR) delivered intervention combining motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). Method: Six participants (ages 23-48) with diagnosed OUD completed semi-structured exit interviews following an 8-week VR-based therapeutic intervention. Interviews were analysed using Colaizzi's seven-step descriptive phenomenological method and thematic inductive analysis. Results: Five overarching themes emerged: (1) utilization of technology (with sub-themes of instrumentation challenges, tolerability concerns, and ease of use), (2) mode of delivery (including psychological safety, and concentration benefits and preference for VR versus in-person delivery), (3) mental health improvement, (4) therapist satisfaction (characterized by non-judgmental support and individualization), and (5) program satisfaction (highlighting convenience, flexibility, and one-on-one therapeutic engagement). All participants reported improvements in mental health, including better stress management, enhanced relationships, and overall well-being. Participants demonstrated high therapeutic engagement and felt psychologically safer sharing personal concerns through VR compared to traditional face-to-face therapy. Conclusions: VR-delivered interventions show promise as a feasible and acceptable treatment modality for OUD, offering unique advantages in therapeutic engagement and psychological safety. However, physical comfort issues (headset heat, motion sickness) and individual preferences must be addressed in future implementations. The findings support the potential for VR technology to transcend generational boundaries and provide effective therapeutic outcomes across age groups.
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.