SynthesisBMC health services research2026
Virtual reality-based therapeutic intervention to prevent delirium in the intensive care unit: a systematic review of participant experiences, acceptability, and implementation implications.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDelirium is common in intensive care units (ICUs) and is associated with adverse outcomes. Virtual reality (VR) is a non-pharmacological modality that may mitigate contributory factors such as sensory deprivation, anxiety, and immobility. This study aims to synthesise acceptability, feasibility, safety/tolerability, and implementation‑relevant outcomes of VR for ICU delirium prevention.
methodsSystematic review of 11 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, Weipu, CBM) from January 2012 to June 2026. Eligible studies evaluated VR-based interventions for delirium prevention in ICUs and reported outcomes on acceptability (e.g., satisfaction, feedback, immersion, comfort), feasibility (e.g. recruitment, completion), and safety/tolerability.
resultsOf 877 articles, seven met the criteria, including 190 patients and 21 healthcare professionals. Most interventions delivered nature-based audiovisual VR content via head-mounted displays, typically calm landscapes accompanied by ambient sounds. Patients consistently reported favourable acceptability, describing VR as enjoyable, immersive, and relaxing, while clinicians highlighted realism, engagement, and compatibility with existing ICU workflows. For feasibility, recruitment rates ranged from 12.6% to 67.6%, with a mean completion rate of 71%, despite substantial heterogeneity in intervention frequency and session duration (5-20 min per session). Safety profiles were favourable, with only mild, transient adverse effects such as dizziness or nausea, none leading to discontinuation.
conclusionVR-based therapeutic interventions in ICU settings may be safe, feasible, and acceptable as adjuncts to multicomponent delirium-prevention strategies, but current estimates are preliminary and subject to substantial uncertainty. Fully powered clinical trials are needed to determine effectiveness and safety. Healthcare professionals might begin with calming, low-exertion, nature-based VR experiences; implement real-time and ongoing monitoring for cybersickness; and embed VR sessions within existing ICU delirium-prevention protocols. Structured staff training and standardised equipment-cleaning procedures will support safe, sustainable adoption while ensuring that technology enhances, rather than replaces, the therapeutic human interaction central to patient-centred ICU care. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Clinical trial number PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251086766.
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.