2021
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.12082
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficacy of Smartphone Active and Passive Virtual Reality Distraction vs Standard Care on Burn Pain Among Pediatric Patients

Abstract: IMPORTANCE It is unknown whether smartphone-based virtual reality (VR) games are effective in reducing pain among pediatric patients in real-world burn clinics. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy of a smartphone VR game on dressing pain among pediatric patients with burns. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This randomized clinical trial included children aged 6 to 17 years who seen in the outpatient clinic of a large American Burn Association-verified pediatric burn center and level I pediatric trauma center b… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
57
0
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
3
57
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…When looked into different VR interventions, active VR yields medium to large effect sizes ranging from Cohen's d of 0.39 (Xiang et al, 2021) to 1.03 (Hoffman et al, 2019), which was similar to the studies using Multi-Modal Distraction (Cohen's d ranging from 0.4 to 1.72). VR was found to be effective in reducing self-reported pain when compared to standard distraction (e.g., TV, videos, books, and toys (Miller et al, 2011;Kipping et al, 2012;Brown et al, 2014)), as well as standard medication care (Hoffman et al, 2019;Hoffman et al, 2020).…”
Section: Meta-analysissupporting
confidence: 64%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…When looked into different VR interventions, active VR yields medium to large effect sizes ranging from Cohen's d of 0.39 (Xiang et al, 2021) to 1.03 (Hoffman et al, 2019), which was similar to the studies using Multi-Modal Distraction (Cohen's d ranging from 0.4 to 1.72). VR was found to be effective in reducing self-reported pain when compared to standard distraction (e.g., TV, videos, books, and toys (Miller et al, 2011;Kipping et al, 2012;Brown et al, 2014)), as well as standard medication care (Hoffman et al, 2019;Hoffman et al, 2020).…”
Section: Meta-analysissupporting
confidence: 64%
“…Although insufficiently powered, the study conducted by Jeffs et al (2014) splits participants into three study groups (VR, passive movie distraction, standard care) allowing for stronger deductions to be made about the specific effects of interventions provided (Jeffs et al, 2014). Expanding Jeffs et al (2014) results, Xiang et al (2021 compared active VR versus passive VR versus standard care in reducing pediatric burn pain with a greater sample size (n 90) and found that children with burn injuries had lower worst pain when exposing to active VR that involves an interaction as compared to passive VR and the standard care, while passive VR and the standard care did not differ from one another in influencing the worst pain levels during the wound care (Xiang et al, 2021).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our VR-PAT consisted of a lightweight VR headset with a Virtual River Cruise game that is played on a smartphone. In our pilot study [ 31 ], we found that active VR (interacting with VR game) was significantly more beneficial than passive VR (watching the same VR game). Due to these findings, only active VR was used for our intervention group for this study.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…VR-PAT is a standalone game developed by the Research Information Solutions and Innovation department at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and could be downloaded onto participants’ smartphones using either a QR code or a dedicated website. More information about the specific game can be found in our prior publication [ 31 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%