Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42470190›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2026

Immersive Technologies in Forensic Mental Health and Prison Settings: Scoping Review.

Ivana Nakarada-Kordic, Dilshani Kumarapeli, Lana Chisholm, Emma Marie Buitenhek, Stephen Reay

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ivana Nakarada-KordicAuckland University of Technology, Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2906-7623
Dilshani KumarapeliAuckland University of Technology, Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3772-9618
Lana ChisholmAuckland University of Technology, Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2102-9083
Emma Marie BuitenhekAuckland University of Technology, Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3426-0606
Stephen ReayAuckland University of Technology, Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6122-6420

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe application of immersive technologies, particularly virtual reality, has expanded rapidly across health care domains, including mental health, rehabilitation, and education. These technologies enable the creation of controlled, interactive, and ecologically valid environments that can support therapeutic interventions, skill development, and behavioral assessment. Within forensic mental health services (FMHS) and prison settings, where individuals often present with complex psychological needs in restrictive and highly regulated environments, immersive technologies offer potential advantages such as safe simulation of real-world scenarios, enhanced engagement, and personalized intervention delivery. However, despite increasing interest, the evidence base remains fragmented, and questions persist regarding effectiveness, ethical implications, and feasibility of implementation in secure and resource-constrained contexts.

objectiveInterest in immersive technologies in FMHS and prison settings is growing, yet their role remains unclear. This scoping review mapped current uses, highlighted opportunities, and identified key gaps and considerations for future implementation.

methodsA scoping review of English-language publications (2010-2025) was conducted using the Scopus, PubMed, and CINAHL databases. Data extraction followed the Joanna Briggs Institute framework, and thematic analysis explored benefits, drawbacks, and implementation barriers.

resultsThirty sources were identified. Primary research focused mainly on virtual reality for therapy, skill training, education, and assessment. There was evidence suggesting benefits such as increased engagement, emotional regulation, skill acquisition, autonomy, and improved clinician-patient dialogue. However, the studies were small, heterogeneous, and inconsistently reported, with limited long-term follow-up. Implementation barriers included institutional, ethical, and technical constraints and limited personalization and end user involvement. Co-design and participatory approaches surfaced as key enablers of acceptability, relevance, and safe use.

conclusionsThe existing evidence base is preliminary and exploratory but indicates that immersive technologies may have potential value in FMHS and prison contexts. Current findings should be interpreted cautiously because studies are small, heterogeneous, and rarely include long-term follow-up. More robust evidence, careful implementation, and meaningful end user input are needed to support safe, relevant, ethical, and effective use. The emphasis on coproduction and guidance for safe, user-centered implementation is a novel contribution.

Indexed as

Mental Health ServicesPrisonsVirtual RealityHealth Services for PrisonersHumansforensic mental healthimmersive technologiesparticipatory implementationprisonsscoping reviewvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID42470190
PMCPMC13428208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.