Older Adults’ Experiences and Perceptions of Immersive Virtual Reality: A Protocol for a Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis
Open accessAbstract
Background: In the current digital age, new opportunities arise to support healthy ageing in older adults as frailty and immobility become more prominent. Immersive virtual reality, which can be defined as a fully computer-generated environment that is displayed through a headmounted display, is one of these technologies. Recently, there has been an increase in the number of qualitative studies exploring the potential for immersive virtual reality in assisting older adults—providing opportunities in health promotion and tackling social isolation and loneliness. With this in mind, the current review aims to explore the following research questions: (1) What are older adults’ experiences and perceptions of immersive virtual reality? (2) What are the specific barriers and facilitators to older adults’ use of immersive virtual reality? (3) Do older adults find immersive virtual reality acceptable? The objective of the current study is to systematically review and synthesize qualitative data exploring older adults’ experiences and perceptions of immersive virtual reality. Methods: A systematic review and thematic synthesis will be conducted. Two reviewers will complete title and abstract screening, full-text screening and, data extraction and quality appraisal. A thematic synthesis will be conducted by the lead author, after which the research team and other key stakeholders will discuss the findings and make any necessary changes. Thematic synthesis is derived from the qualitative method, thematic analysis. It involves three key steps: initial coding and grouping of these codes, the formation of descriptive themes from these codes and finally, going beyond the data to form novel insights and theories known as analytical themes. The following protocol has been written following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Data extraction was completed by 2 reviewers using a prespecified data extraction checklist.
“In total, 2 reviewers performed the data extraction (DH and AF) using a prespecified data extraction checklist [22].”
From Older Adults’ Experiences and Perceptions of Immersive Virtual Reality: Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
The Study Records section (p. 4) says DH and AF will perform data extraction and lists the data they plan to extract. It does not say they completed extraction or used a prespecified checklist; this is a protocol describing planned work. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA protocol detailing the background, rationale, and methods of this systematic review has already been published.
“A protocol detailing the background, rationale, and methods of this systematic review has already been published [22].”
From Older Adults’ Experiences and Perceptions of Immersive Virtual Reality: Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
The review protocol was published, registered on PROSPERO, and preregistered on the Open Science Framework, with an open-source repository of all review materials stored and updated.
“The review protocol was published [22], registered on PROSPERO, and preregistered on the Open Science Framework, where an open-source repository of all the review materials has been stored and updated (Multimedia Appendix 1).”
From Older Adults’ Experiences and Perceptions of Immersive Virtual Reality: Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 10
- Authors
- Healy, D., Flynn, A., Conlan, O., McSharry, J., & Walsh, J.
- Affiliations
- Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
- Trinity College Dublin (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Healy, David
- Venue
- International Journal of Qualitative Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-01-01
- Volume
- 20
- ISSN
- 1609-4069 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3157302456
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Qualitative Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Science Foundation Ireland (18/CRT/6224)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Keywords
- immersive virtual reality, older adults, user experience, user perception, acceptability, barriers and facilitators, healthy aging, social isolation, loneliness, health promotion, head-mounted displays
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
