Virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis

Abstract There is now a substantial literature investigating virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) as a viable treatment option for anxiety disorders. In this meta-analysis we provide effect size estimates for virtual reality treatment in comparison to in vivo exposure and control conditions (wait...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of anxiety disorders Vol. 22; no. 3; pp. 561 - 569
Main Authors Powers, Mark B, Emmelkamp, Paul M.G
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York, NY Elsevier Ltd 01.04.2008
Elsevier
Subjects
Anxiety disorders
Anxiety Disorders - psychology
Anxiety Disorders - therapy
Behavior therapy. Cognitive therapy
Biological and medical sciences
Cognitive Therapy - methods
Exposure therapy
Humans
Medical sciences
Meta-analysis
Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Treatments
User-Computer Interface
Virtual reality
Anxiety disorders
Exposure therapy
Virtual reality
Meta-analysis
Human
Treatment
Treatment efficiency
Anxiety disorder
Exposure
Behavior therapy
Review
Metaanalysis
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Abstract There is now a substantial literature investigating virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) as a viable treatment option for anxiety disorders. In this meta-analysis we provide effect size estimates for virtual reality treatment in comparison to in vivo exposure and control conditions (waitlist, attention control, etc.). A comprehensive search of the literature identified 13 studies ( n = 397) that were included in the final analyses. Consistent with prediction the primary random effects analysis showed a large mean effect size for VRET compared to control conditions, Cohen's d = 1.11 (S.E. = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.82–1.39). This finding was consistent across secondary outcome categories as well (domain-specific, general subjective distress, cognition, behavior, and psychophysiology). Also as expected in vivo treatment was not significantly more effective than VRET. In fact, there was a small effect size favoring VRET over in vivo conditions, Cohen's d = 0.35 (S.E. = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.05–0.65). There was a trend for a dose–response relationship with more VRET sessions showing larger effects ( p = 0.06). Outcome was not related to publication year or sample size. Implications are discussed.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0887-6185
1873-7897
DOI:10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.04.006