ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Clinical implementation of virtual reality in neurorehabilitation: a scoping review of barriers, facilitators, and motivational factors.
Review in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Virtual reality is increasingly used in neurorehabilitation because it provides interactive therapeutic experiences that can enhance patient engagement and support rehabilitation goals. Despite growing evidence supporting its potential benefits, the extent of its integration into routine clinical practice remains unclear. This scoping review aimed to examine the current clinical use of virtual reality in neurorehabilitation and identify barriers, facilitators, and motivational factors influencing its implementation. Searches of seven electronic databases [PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)] were conducted to identify relevant studies published between 2010 and 2025. Eligible studies were screened according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data were extracted and synthesised descriptively. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Clinical use of virtual reality varied considerably across settings, with only a limited proportion of therapists reporting regular use. Stroke rehabilitation was the most common area of application. Increased patient engagement and positive patient feedback were identified as motivational factors, while improved infrastructure and therapist training were reported facilitators of implementation. Common barriers included limited technical support, insufficient time, inadequate training, and resistance to change. These findings indicate that although interest in virtual reality for neurorehabilitation is increasing, its adoption in clinical practice remains inconsistent and is influenced by organisational, technical, and human factors. Addressing these barriers may facilitate wider implementation and support the integration of virtual reality into routine neurorehabilitation services.
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.