Cited by 39Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques

A randomised wait-list controlled pilot trial of one-session virtual reality exposure therapy for blood-injection-injury phobias

Jiang, Michelle Y.W., Upton, Emily, Newby, Jill M.·2020·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) has been recognized as an effective treatment for specific phobias and has the potential to overcome the limitations of traditional in vivo exposure therapy (e.g., acceptability). No past research has evaluated the efficacy of VRET for the treatment of blood-injection-injury (BII) phobia. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to examine the acceptability and efficacy of a single-session VRET intervention for BII phobias. Participants who met DSM-5 criteria for BII phobia (N = 43) were randomized to VRET or a waiting list control group, and completed self-report measures of BII severity (Medical Fear Survey [MFS] and Multidimensional Blood Phobia Inventory [MBPI]) and dental anxiety (Modified Dental Anxiety Scale), as well as clinician ratings of BII phobia severity and catastrophic cognitions at baseline, one-week post-treatment, and 3-month follow-up. We found medium to large differences in catastrophic cognitions (probability [g = 0.88] and cost [g = 0.66] ratings), favouring VRET. We found moderate to large differences favouring VRET on the MBPI Injection and Injury fears subscales (g's=0.64-1.14) at one-week post-treatment and 3-month follow-up, and on the MBPI Fainting subscale (g = 0.84) and Injections subscale of the Medical Fear Survey (g = 0.63) at follow-up. There were no other significant group differences. These findings provided some initial evidence to suggest that a single-session VRET may provide some improvements in fears of injections, injury, and fainting. While it may be a useful adjunct or interim step before in vivo exposure therapy, it is not sufficient as a standalone treatment for BII phobia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2020.07.076

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jiang, M. Y. W., Upton, E., & Newby, J. M.
Affiliations
UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Newby, Jill M.
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
276
Pages
636-645
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3044097102
Cited by
39
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6
FWCI
4.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Keywords
virtual reality exposure therapy, blood-injection-injury phobia, single-session intervention, catastrophic cognitions, dental anxiety, treatment acceptability, specific phobia
MeSH terms
Humans, Implosive Therapy, Phobic Disorders, Pilot Projects, Waiting Lists, Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy

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