ArticleCureus2026
Immersive Patient Education in Radiation Oncology: A Prospective, Randomized, Feasibility Pilot Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective Patients undergoing external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) frequently experience anxiety, uncertainty, and difficulty understanding the treatment process. Immersive educational approaches incorporating 360° video technologies may improve patient understanding and preparedness while enhancing the overall patient experience. This study aimed to prospectively evaluate the operational feasibility and patient experience outcomes associated with implementation of a flexible immersive patient education program (IPEP) integrated into routine radiation oncology workflows for patients undergoing EBRT. Methods A prospective randomized pilot study was conducted to compare standard-of-care (SOC) education with an immersive education intervention integrated into routine radiation oncology workflows. Immersive educational materials consisting of 360° first-person-perspective videos were delivered through either a virtual reality (VR) headset or a flattened video format based on patient preference and tolerance. Patient-reported anxiety, understanding, and satisfaction were assessed longitudinally throughout treatment using Likert-scale survey instruments. Treatment workflow metrics including treatment time, imaging frequency, and setup shifts were also evaluated. Results Forty-nine patients completed the study (24 SOC and 25 intervention: eight VR, 17 flattened first-person-perspective video). The intervention group demonstrated greater reductions in treatment-related, cancer-related, and care plan-related anxiety throughout treatment. Reduction in care plan-related anxiety was significantly greater in the intervention arm (p = 0.01). Patient-reported understanding improved significantly in the intervention group compared with standard of care (p = 0.03). Satisfaction improved in both groups, with larger positive changes observed in the intervention arm. Exploratory workflow metrics demonstrated directional trends toward improved treatment efficiency in the intervention arm, including reductions in treatment time, imaging frequency, and number of setup shifts over the treatment course. Conclusions The implementation of an IPEP was associated with improvements in patient-reported anxiety and understanding during radiation therapy. These findings support the feasibility of integrating an IPEP into routine radiation oncology workflows and suggest potential benefits for patient experience outcomes. Larger studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of immersive education approaches and their impact on workflow efficiency.
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.