Experiences of Patients and Therapists Testing a Virtual Reality Exposure App for Symptoms of Claustrophobia: Mixed Methods Study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of virtual reality exposure (VRE) in the treatment of anxiety disorders is well established. Several psychological mechanisms of VRE have been identified, whereby both emotional processing and the sense of presence play a key role. However, there are only few studies that contribute to our knowledge of examples of implementation in the case of VRE for claustrophobia based on patients' experiences and the perspective of therapists. OBJECTIVE: This study asks for key elements of a VRE app that are necessary for effective exposure for people with claustrophobic symptoms. METHODS: A mixed methods design was applied in which patients (n=15) and therapeutic experts (n=15) tested a VRE intervention of an elevator ride at 5 intensity levels. Intensity was varied by elevator size, duration of the elevator ride, and presence of virtual humans. Quantitative measures examined self-reported presence with the Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ) ranging from 0 to 6 and 15 Likert-scaled evaluation items that had been developed for the purpose of this study, ranging from 1 to 5. In both measures, higher scores indicate higher levels of presence or agreement. Think-aloud protocols of the patients and semistructured interviews posttreatment of all participants were conducted to gain in-depth perspectives on emotional processes. RESULTS: The intervention induced a feeling of presence in patients and experts, posttreatment scores showed a high IPQ presence score (mean 3.84, SD 0.88), with its subscores IPQ spatial presence (mean 4.53, SD 1.06), IPQ involvement (mean 3.83, SD 1.22), and IPQ experienced realism (mean 2.75, SD 1.02). Patients preferred a setting in the presence of a therapist (mean 4.13, SD 0.83) more than the experts did (mean 3.33, SD 1.54). Think-aloud protocols of the patients revealed that presence and anxiety both were achieved. Qualitative interviews of patients and experts uncovered 8 topics: feelings and emotions, personal story, telepresence, potential therapeutic effects, barriers, conditions and requirements, future prospects, and realization. The intensity levels were felt to appropriately increase in challenge, with ambivalent results regarding the final level. Virtual humans contributed to feelings of fear. CONCLUSIONS: Key elements of a VRE app for claustrophobic symptoms should include variation of intensity by adding challenging cues in order to evoke presence and anxiety. Virtual humans are a suitable possibility to make the intervention realistic and to provide a sense of closeness; however, some of the fears might then be related to symptoms of social phobia or agoraphobia. Patients may need the physical presence of a therapist, though not all of them share this view. A higher degree of sophistication in the intensity levels is needed to deliver targeted help for specific symptoms of anxiety.
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?
The presence of a psychotherapist to guide therapy cannot be replaced by artificial intelligence adaptive algorithms.
“Although the self-exposure VRET perspective would significantly unburden the current inability to perform psychological treatments, the presence of a psychotherapist to guide the paints cannot be replaced by artificial intelligence adaptative algorithms [153].”
From SAFEvR MentalVeRse.app: Development of a Free Immersive Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Acrophobia and Claustrophobia (2024) · cites this paper as [153]
The Discussion section “Therapeutic Setting of VRE” says guidelines recommend a therapist’s presence, but also describes evidence that self-managed VRE is not inferior to therapist-guided VRE and recommends therapist presence for initial sessions rather than all sessions. The paper does not assess artificial-intelligence adaptive algorithms or establish that they cannot replace a therapist. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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 72 · Cited by 30
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [5]National Institut for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Panic Disorder in Adults: Management 2011 2022-11-17 https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg113 31961629
- [7]Bandelow B Lichte T Rudolf S Wiltink J Beutel M S3-Leitlinie: Kurzfassung der Empfehlungen zur Behandlung von Angststörungen S3-Leitlinie Angststörungen 2015 Berlin Springer 1 22
- [33]Vadakkan C Siddiqui W Claustrophobia 2021 Treasure Island, FL StatPearls 31194467
- [73]Korbel J Meywirth S Zarnekow R A taxonomy of virtual reality applications for the treatment of anxiety disorders 2021 29th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) 2021 Marrakech
- Authors
- Mayer, G., Gronewold, N., Polte, K., Hummel, S., Barniske, J., Korbel, J. J., Zarnekow, R., & Schultz, J.-H.
- Affiliations
- University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
- Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Mayer, Gwendolyn
- ORCID
- Venue
- JMIR Mental Health
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2022-12-05
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e40056
- ISSN
- 2368-7959 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9764154
- OpenAlex
- W4310773525
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 2.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (FKZ 13GW0157B)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- claustrophobia, virtual reality exposure therapy, mobile application, presence, spatial presence, therapist presence, virtual humans, exposure intensity, anxiety, think-aloud, telepresence, phobia treatment, emotional processing, user-centered design
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