Patient Perceptions of In Vivo Versus Virtual Reality Exposures for the Treatment of Anxiety Disorders: Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Abstract

Background Psychotherapy, and particularly exposure therapy, has been proven to be an effective treatment for many anxiety disorders, including social and specific phobias, as well as posttraumatic stress disorders. Currently, exposures are underused and mostly delivered in vivo. Virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) offers a more flexible delivery mechanism that has the potential to address some of the implementation barriers of in vivo exposures while retaining effectiveness. Yet, there is little evidence on how patients perceive different exposure therapy methods. Objective This study aims to explore the perceptions of individuals with anxiety disorders toward in vivo and VRET. Our findings can inform therapists about the degree of patient interest in both methods while exploring the demand for VRET as an alternative and novel treatment approach. Methods Web-based survey assessing the (1) interest in, (2) willingness to use, (3) comfort with, (4) enthusiasm toward, and (5) perceived effectiveness of exposure therapy when delivered in vivo and through VR. Participants included individuals with specific phobia, social phobia, posttraumatic stress disorder, or acute stress disorder or reaction. Participants were presented with educational videos about in vivo and VRET and asked to provide their perceptions quantitatively and qualitatively through a rated scale and free-text responses. Results In total, 184 surveys were completed and analyzed, in which 82% (n=151) of participants reported being willing to receive in vivo exposures and 90.2% (n=166) reported willingness to receive VRET. Participants reported higher interest in, comfort with, enthusiasm toward, and perceived effectiveness of VRET compared to in vivo. Most reported in vivo concerns were linked to (1) increased anxiety, (2) feelings of embarrassment or shame, and (3) exacerbation of current condition. Most reported VRET concerns were linked to (1) risk of side effects including increased anxiety, (2) efficacy uncertainty, and (3) health insurance coverage. The most frequently mentioned VRET benefits include (1) privacy, (2) safety, (3) the ability to control exposures, (4) comfort, (5) the absence of real-life consequences, (6) effectiveness, and (7) customizability to a wider variety of exposures. Conclusions On average, our participants expressed positive perceptions toward exposure therapy, with slightly more positive perceptions of VRET over in vivo exposures. Despite valid personal concerns and some misconceptions, our findings emphasize that VRET provides an opportunity to get much-needed therapy to patients in ways that are more acceptable and less concerning.