ArticleResearch square2026
Are virtual reality (VR) interventions for substance use disorders designed for implementation? A rapid review of platform characteristics and clinical fit.
Article in Research square, 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
Abstract
Background: Virtual reality (VR) interventions show promise for improving substance use disorder (SUD) treatment outcomes, but successful implementation depends on compatibility with real-world clinical settings. No review has yet characterized the implementation readiness of recently described SUD-focused VR platforms. Methods: We conducted a rapid review of peer-reviewed research published between 2020 and 2025 to characterize the implementation readiness of recently described SUD-focused VR platforms, focusing on their technical characteristics, therapeutic goals, and implementation requirements. Following a systematic search, 14 studies were included. Each intervention was coded for platform features such as hardware requirements, interactivity, and clinician involvement using a framework informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: Patient acceptability and tolerability were consistently high across studies. However, several platform characteristics posed potential implementation barriers. Four studies (29%) required PC-tethered hardware or specialized physical spaces that could hinder adoption. A minority (n = 5, 36%) were explicitly grounded in established evidence-based approaches. Ten (71%) were designed primarily as self-guided supplemental interventions largely independent of routine treatment sessions. Conclusions: Most recently described VR interventions for SUD have implementation barriers that could limit adoption in community treatment settings. We recommend that developers design for portable, standalone hardware, keep session length and training burden realistic for community settings, ground therapeutic content in familiar evidence-based practices, and favor interactive over passive designs. Addressing these factors proactively will help ensure VR experiences for SUD treatment align with the practical realities of the settings in which they will be used.
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.