Cited by 216Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes

Effectiveness of a Virtual Reality Forest on People With Dementia: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study

Open access
Moyle, Wendy, Jones, Cindy, Dwan, Toni, Petrovich, Tanya·2018·The Gerontologist

Abstract

Purpose of the Study: To measure and describe the effectiveness of a Virtual Reality Forest (VRF) on engagement, apathy, and mood states of people with dementia, and explore the experiences of staff, people with dementia and their families. Design and Methods: A mixed-methods study conducted between February and May 2016. Ten residents with dementia, 10 family members, and 9 care staff were recruited from 2 residential aged care facilities, operated by one care provider, located in Victoria, Australia. Residents participated in one facilitated VRF session. Residents' mood, apathy, and engagement were measured by the Observed Emotion Rating Scale, Person-Environment Apathy Rating Scale, and Types of Engagement. All participants were interviewed. Results: Overall, the VRF was perceived by residents, family members, and staff to have a positive effect. During the VRF experience, residents experienced more pleasure (p = .008) and a greater level of alertness (p < .001). They also experienced a greater level of fear/anxiety during the forest experience than the comparative normative sample (p = .016). Implications: This initial, small-scale study represents the first to introduce the VRF activity and describe the impact on people with dementia. The VRF was perceived to have a positive effect on people with dementia, although, compared to the normative sample, a greater level of fear/anxiety during the VRF was experienced. This study suggests virtual reality may have the potential to improve quality of life, and the outcomes can be used to inform the development of future Virtual Reality activities for people with dementia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/geront/gnw270

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Moyle, W., Jones, C., Dwan, T., & Petrovich, T.
Affiliations
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • Dementia Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Moyle, Wendy
Venue
The Gerontologist
Published
2017-03-15
Volume
58
Issue
3
Pages
478-487
ISSN
  • 0016-9013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-5341
OpenAlex
W2604368725
Cited by
216
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
11.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Gerontologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Alzheimer’s Australia Vic
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Keywords
virtual reality, dementia, engagement, apathy, mood, nursing homes, care workers, family caregivers, anxiety, quality of life
MeSH terms
Virtual Reality, Affect, Aged, 80 and over, Dementia, Emotions, Family, Female, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Residential Facilities, Victoria, Apathy, Forests

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