ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
CBT therapists' attitudes toward virtual reality use in psychotherapy: a brief report from the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) is an increasingly accessible technology with strong potential to support cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), particularly through virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET). However, real-world uptake remains limited, and there is a lack of knowledge about implementation needs in specific regions. This convergent mixed-methods study explored the attitudes, perceived benefits and barriers, and desired functional and training requirements of Czech and Slovak CBT psychotherapists regarding the use of VR. Thirty-three therapists completed an anonymous online questionnaire combining Likert-type ratings and open-ended questions. Overall attitudes toward VR were positive (M = 4.09, SD = 0.72), while perceived acceptance among colleagues was moderate (M = 3.39, SD = 0.80). Perceived risk of detracting from the therapeutic alliance was low-to-moderate (M = 2.09, SD = 0.84) and differed by practice length, with the lowest risk in mid-career therapists. Key perceived benefits were client safety and controllability of exposure; the dominant barrier was financial cost (60.6%), followed by training and technical concerns. Therapists prioritized safety controls (e.g., stop button), flexible exposure adjustment, biofeedback, and structured protocols, with a strong preference for online training with practical demonstrations. Findings suggest readiness to adopt VR, contingent on affordable infrastructure, standardized guidance, and clinician-centered tool design.
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.