Cited by 188Digital Mental Health InterventionsVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Effectiveness of Self-guided App-Based Virtual Reality Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Acrophobia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Donker, Tara, Cornelisz, Ilja, van Klaveren, Chris, van Straten, Annemieke, Carlbring, Per, Cuijpers, Pim, van Gelder, Jean-Louis·2019·JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract

Importance: Globally, access to evidence-based psychological treatment is limited. Innovative self-help methods using smartphone applications and low-cost virtual reality have the potential to significantly improve the accessibility and scalability of psychological treatments. Objective: To examine the effectiveness of ZeroPhobia, a fully self-guided app-based virtual reality cognitive behavior therapy (VR CBT) using low-cost (cardboard) virtual reality goggles compared with a wait-list control group and to determine its user friendliness. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a single-blind randomized clinical trial, participants were enrolled between March 24 and September 28, 2017, and randomly assigned (1:1) by an independent researcher to either VR CBT app or a wait-list control group. A total of 193 individuals aged 18 to 65 years from the Dutch general population with acrophobia symptoms and access to an Android smartphone participated. The 6 animated modules of the VR-CBT app and gamified virtual reality environments were delivered over a 3-week period in participants' natural environment. Assessments were completed at baseline, immediately after treatment, and at 3-month follow-up. Analysis began April 6, 2018, and was intention to treat. Intervention: Self-guided app-based VR CBT. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was the Acrophobia Questionnaire. The hypothesis was formulated prior to data collection. Results: In total, 193 participants (129 women [66.84%]; mean [SD] age, 41.33 [13.64] years) were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 96) or a wait-list control group (n = 97). An intent-to-treat analysis showed a significant reduction of acrophobia symptoms at posttest at 3 months for the VR-CBT app compared with the controls (b = -26.73 [95% CI, -32.12 to -21.34]; P < .001; d = 1.14 [95% CI, 0.84 to 1.44]). The number needed to treat was 1.7. Sensitivity and robustness analysis confirmed these findings. Pretreatment attrition was 22 of 96 (23%) because of smartphone incompatibility. Of the 74 participants who started using the VR-CBT app, 57 (77%) completed the intervention fully. Conclusions and Relevance: A low-cost fully self-guided app-based virtual reality cognitive behavioral therapy with rudimentary virtual reality goggles can produce large acrophobia symptom reductions. To our knowledge, this study is the first to show that virtual reality acrophobia treatment can be done at home without the intervention of a therapist. Trial Registration: Trialregister.nl identifier: NTR6442.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0219

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The use of consumer VRET to treat acrophobia and claustrophobia has been shown to be effective for acrophobia and claustrophobia, as well as demonstrating efficacy with the general treatment of specific and complex phobias.

    “The use of consumer VRET to treat these phobias has been shown to be effective for acrophobia and claustrophobia, as well as demonstrating efficacy with the general treatment of specific and complex phobias [38].”

    From SAFEvR MentalVeRse.app: Development of a Free Immersive Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Acrophobia and Claustrophobia (2024) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Abstract and Key Points report that a self-guided, low-cost smartphone VR intervention significantly reduced acrophobia symptoms compared with a wait-list control group. They do not establish efficacy for claustrophobia or for specific and complex phobias generally; the Strengths and Limitations section says effectiveness for other phobias remains to be examined. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • VR technologies can give traditional CBT a more ecological and patient-friendly approach while keeping the whole benefits and effectiveness of the therapy.

    “the possibility to use VR technologies has been explored in order to give traditional CBT a more ecological and patient-friendly approach, while keeping the whole benefits and effectiveness of the therapy (Donker et al., 2019).”

    From Virtual reality and psychedelics for the treatment of psychiatric disease: A systematic literature review (2020) · cites this paper as Donker et al., 2019

    The Key Points report that the VR-CBT app reduced acrophobia symptoms and was rated user friendly; Strengths and Limitations describes its use in participants’ natural environments as a source of ecological validity. But the trial compared the app with a wait-list, not traditional CBT. Strengths and Limitations explicitly calls for a direct comparison with in vivo treatment, so it cannot establish that VR-CBT retains all of traditional CBT’s benefits or effectiveness. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • All three automated VR exposure applications included a virtual therapist of some sort, either voiceover or as an embodied agent.

    “Interestingly enough, all three automated VR exposure applications mentioned above opted to include a virtual therapist of some sort (Donker et al. 2019;Freeman et al. 2018;Miloff et al. 2019), either voiceover or as an embodied agent.”
  • All three automated VR exposure trials report impressive symptom reductions.

    “All three trials report impressive symptom reductions”
  • Three high-quality randomized trials of automated VR exposure therapy have been published recently, featuring three different applications: two on acrophobia with comparison against waiting-list and one on spider phobia examining non-inferiority against gold-standard in vivo exposure.

    “Three high-quality randomized trials have been published recently, featuring three different applications: two on acrophobia with comparison against waiting-list (Donker et al. 2019;Freeman et al. 2018) and one on spider phobia examining non-inferiority against gold-standard in vivo exposure (Miloff et al. 2019).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cohen DC. Personality predictors and the outcome of varieties of desensitization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA; 1972.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Donker, T., Cornelisz, I., van Klaveren, C., van Straten, A., Carlbring, P., Cuijpers, P., & van Gelder, J.-L.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Department of Education Sciences, Section Methods and Statistics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • Department of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Section Clinical Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Department of Psychology of Conflict, Risk and Safety, University of Twente, Enschede, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Corresponding author
Donker, Tara
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2019-07-01
Volume
76
Issue
7
Pages
682
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2923961203
Cited by
187
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 6
FWCI
27.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
acrophobia, self-guided treatment, mobile application, low-cost virtual reality, gamification, anxiety disorders, treatment accessibility, attrition, ease of use, waitlist control, treatment effect size, number needed to treat, sensitivity analysis, robustness analysis
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Virtual Reality, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Phobic Disorders, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review