Advances in immersive virtual reality interventions for mental disorders: A new reality?

Mental health problems are inseparable from the environment. With virtual reality (VR), computer-generated interactive environments, individuals can repeatedly experience their problematic situations and be taught, via evidence-based psychological treatments, how to overcome difficulties. VR is moving out of specialist laboratories. Our central aim was to describe the potential of VR in mental health, including a consideration of the first 20 years of applications. A systematic review of empirical studies was conducted. In all, 285 studies were identified, with 86 concerning assessment, 45 theory development, and 154 treatment. The main disorders researched were anxiety (n = 192), schizophrenia (n = 44), substance-related disorders (n = 22) and eating disorders (n = 18). There are pioneering early studies, but the methodological quality of studies was generally low. The gaps in meaningful applications to mental health are extensive. The most established finding is that VR exposure-based treatments can reduce anxiety disorders, but there are numerous research and treatment avenues of promise. VR was found to be a much-misused term, often applied to non-interactive and non-immersive technologies. We conclude that VR has the potential to transform the assessment, understanding and treatment of mental health problems. The treatment possibilities will only be realized if – with the user experience at the heart of design – the best immersive VR technology is combined with targeted translational interventions. The capability of VR to simulate reality could greatly increase access to psychological therapies, while treatment outcomes could be enhanced by the technology's ability to create new realities. VR may merit the level of attention given to neuroimaging.

Trials of virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) for anxiety-related disorders have proliferated in number and diversity since our previous meta-analysis that examined 13 total trials, most of which were for specific phobias (Powers & Emmelkamp, 2008). Since then, new trials have compared VRET to more diverse anxiety and related disorders including social anxiety disorder (SAD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and panic disorder (PD) with and without agoraphobia. With the availability of this data, it is imperative to re-examine the efficacy of VRET for anxiety. A literature search for randomized controlled trials of VRET versus control or in vivo exposure yielded 30 studies with 1057 participants. Fourteen studies tested VRET for specific phobias, 8 for SAD or performance anxiety, 5 for PTSD, and 3 for PD. A random effects analysis estimated a large effect size for VRET versus waitlist (g = 0.90) and a medium to large effect size for VRET versus psychological placebo conditions (g = 0.78). A comparison of VRET and in vivo conditions did not show significantly different effect sizes (g = -0.07). These findings were relatively consistent across disorders. A meta-regression analysis revealed that larger sample sizes were associated with lower effect sizes in VRET versus control comparisons (β = -0.007, p <  0.05). These results indicate that VRET is an effective and equal medium for exposure therapy.