Effect of a Behavioral Therapy-Based Virtual Reality Application on Quality of Life in Chronic Low Back Pain

Exploring the potential of virtual reality for the self-management of chronic pain: A scoping review of its use to address health literacy

BACKGROUND

Individuals with low health literacy struggle to manage long-term conditions. Addressing pain-related health competencies is important in the management of chronic pain. Virtual reality may be a useful tool for empowering sustainable health-related stratgies due to its unique ability to engage users in artificial environments.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this scoping review was to explore existing research on the use of virtual reality as a tool to promote health literacy in people with chronic pain.

DESIGN

Scoping Review guided by framework proposed by Arksey & O'Malley.

METHOD

Articles related to "pain", "virtual reality" and "health literacy" were searched in four electronic databases: CINAHL, PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO using a formal search strategy. Studies were categorised based on intervention content using the Health Literacy Pathway Model which encompasses health knowledge, self-management skills, health communication and information seeking.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Several elements of pain related health literacy were not addressed in the research. Interventions addressed health knowledge, self-management skills, decision making and featured content aiming to address emotional barriers to pain-related health literacy. Other components including active information seeking and use, actively communicating with health professionals and seeking and negotiating treatment options, were not explicitly addressed.

CONCLUSION

There is heterogeneity in existing research exploring the use of VR to support people with chronic pain. Existing VR tools to address pain-related health literacy do not cover several key components of health literacy. More research is required before a robust assessment of efficacy can be undertaken.

Optimizing Pain Intensity Assessment in Clinical Trials: How Many Ratings are Needed to Best Balance the Need for Validity and to Minimize Assessment Burden?

Pain intensity is the most commonly used outcome domain in pain clinical trials. To minimize the chances of type II error (ie, concluding that a treatment does not have beneficial effects, when in fact it does), the measure of pain intensity used should be sensitive to changes produced by effective pain treatments. Here we sought to identify the combination of pain intensity ratings that would balance the need for reliability and validity against the need to minimize assessment burden. We conducted secondary analyses using data from a completed 4-arm clinical trial of psychological pain treatments (N = 164 adults). Current, worst, least, and average pain intensity in the past 24 hours were assessed 4 times before and after treatment using 0 to 10 numerical rating scale-11. We created a variety of composite scores using these ratings and evaluated their reliability (Cronbach's alphas) and validity (ie, associations with a gold standard score created by averaging 16 ratings and sensitivity for detecting between-group differences in treatment efficacy). We found that for each measure, reliability increased as the number of ratings used to create the measures increased and that ratings from 3 or more days were needed to have adequately strong associations with the gold standard. Regarding sensitivity, the findings suggest that composite scores made up of ratings from 4 days are needed to maximize the chances of detecting treatment effects, especially with smaller sample sizes. In conclusion, using data from 3 or 4 days of assessment may be the best practice. PERSPECTIVE: Composite scores made up of at least 3 days of pain ratings appear to be needed to maximize reliability and validity while minimizing the assessment burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01800604.

Virtual Reality in Acute and Chronic Pain Medicine: An Updated Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review critically analyzes the recent literature on virtual reality's (VR) use in acute and chronic pain management, offering insights into its efficacy, applications, and limitations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies, including meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials, have demonstrated VR's effectiveness in reducing pain intensity in various acute pain scenarios, such as procedural/acute pain and in chronic pain conditions. The role of factors such as immersion and presence in enhancing VR's efficacy has been emphasized. Further benefits have been identified in the use of VR for assessment as well as symptom gathering through conversational avatars. However, studies are limited, and strong conclusions will require further investigation. VR is emerging as a promising non-pharmacological intervention in pain management for acute and chronic pain. However, its long-term efficacy, particularly in chronic pain management, remains an area requiring further research. Key findings highlight that VR programs vary in efficacy depending on the specificity of the origin of pain.

Virtual Reality-Based Training in Chronic Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is one of the most prevalent pain conditions worldwide. Virtual reality-based training has been used for low back pain as a new treatment strategy. Present evidence indicated that the effectiveness of virtual reality-based training for people with chronic low back pain is inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

This study conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the immediate- and short-term effects of virtual reality-based training on pain, pain-related fear, and disability in people with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PEDro, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases from inception until January 2024. Only randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of virtual reality-based training on individuals with chronic low back pain were selected. The outcomes were focused on pain, pain-related fear measured by the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, and disability measured by the Oswestry Disability Index. The immediate term was defined as the immediate period after intervention, and the short term was defined as 3 to 6 months after intervention. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach were used to evaluate the quality of the methodology and evidence, respectively.

RESULTS

In total, 20 randomized controlled trials involving 1059 patients were eligible for analysis. Virtual reality-based training showed significant improvements in pain (mean difference [MD] -1.43; 95% CI -1.86 to -1.00; I2=95%; P<.001), pain-related fear using the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (MD -5.46; 95% CI -9.40 to 1.52; I2=90%; P=.007), and disability using the Oswestry Disability Index (MD -11.50; 95% CI -20.00 to -3.01; I2=95%; P=.008) in individuals with chronic low back pain immediately after interventions. However, there were no significant differences observed in pain (P=.16), pain-related fear (P=.10), and disability (P=.43) in the short term.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicated that virtual reality-based training can be used effectively for individuals with chronic low back pain in the immediate term, especially to reduce pain, alleviate pain-related fear, and improve disability. However, the short-term benefits need more high-quality trials to be demonstrated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021292633; http://tinyurl.com/25mydxpz.

Development of a Multimodal, Personalized Intervention of Virtual Reality Integrated Within Physiotherapy for Patients With Complex Chronic Low-Back Pain

Background

Chronic low-back pain (CLBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability. Physiotherapy is the most common treatment option for CLBP, but effects are often unsatisfactory. Virtual reality (VR) offers possibilities to enhance the effectiveness of physiotherapy treatment. Primary aim was to develop and test a personalized VR intervention integrated within a physiotherapy treatment for patients with CLBP.

Methods

This study describes an intervention development process using mixed methods design that followed the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework. This involved a cocreation process with patients, physiotherapists, and researchers. A draft intervention was constructed based on a literature review and focus groups, and subsequently tested in a feasibility study and evaluated in focus groups. Focus group data were analyzed using thematic analysis. This intervention development process resulted in a final intervention.

Results

Focus group data showed that VR and physiotherapy can strengthen each other when they are well integrated, and that VR needs to be administered under the right conditions including flawless technology, physiotherapists with sufficient affinity and training, and the right expectations from patients. The draft intervention was considered feasible after evaluation by four patients and three physiotherapists and was further complemented by expanding the training for physiotherapists and improving the protocols for physiotherapists and patients. The final intervention consisted of a 12-week physiotherapy treatment with three integrated VR modules: pain education, physical exercise, and relaxation.

Conclusion

Using the MRC framework in cocreation with the end users, a personalized VR intervention integrated within a physiotherapy treatment for patients with CLBP was developed. This intervention was found to be feasible and will subsequently be evaluated for (cost-)effectiveness in a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Comparative effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in reducing psychological symptoms among patients with chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVES

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) can seriously impair the quality of life of patients and has a remarkable comorbidity with psychological symptoms, which, in turn, can further exacerbate the symptoms of CLBP. Psychological treatments are critical and nonnegligent for the management of CLBP, and thus, should attract sufficient attention. However, current evidence does not suggest the superiority and effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in reducing psychological symptoms among patients with CLBP.Thus, this study was designed to compare the effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions for depression, anxiety, and mental health among patients with CLBP and to recommend preferred strategies for attenuating psychological symptoms in clinical practice.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), PubMed, Embase Database, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from database inception until March 2022. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compare different nonpharmacological interventions for depression, anxiety, and mental health among patients with CLBP were eligible. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement was used. Four reviewers in pairs and divided into two groups independently performed literature selection, data extraction, and risk of bias, and certainty of evidence assessments. This NMA was conducted with a random effects model under a frequentist framework. The major outcomes were depression, anxiety, and mental health presented as the standardized mean difference (SMD) with the corresponding 95% CI.

RESULTS

A total of 66 RCTs that randomized 4806 patients with CLBP met the inclusion criteria. The quality of evidence was typically low or some risks of bias (47 out of 66 trials, 71.3%), and the precision of summary estimates for effectiveness varied substantially. In addition, 7 categories of interventions with 26 specific treatments were evaluated. For depression, mind body therapy (pooled SMD = -1.20, 95% CI: -1.63 to -0.78), biopsychosocial approach (pooled SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.12), and physical therapy (pooled SMD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.02) exhibited remarkable effectiveness in reducing depression compared with the control group. For managing anxiety, mind body therapy (pooled SMD = -1.35, 95% CI: -1.90 to -0.80), multicomponent intervention (pooled SMD = -0.47, 95% CI: -0.88 to -0.06), and a biopsychosocial approach (pooled SMD = -0.46, 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.14) were substantially superior to the control group. For improving mental health, multicomponent intervention (pooled SMD = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.14 to 1.39), exercise (pooled SMD = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.11), and physical therapy (pooled SMD = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.02-0.92) demonstrated statistically substantial effectiveness compared with the control group. The rank probability indicated that mind body therapy achieved the highest effectiveness in reducing depression and anxiety among patients with CLBP. Besides, the combined results should be interpreted cautiously based on the results of analyses evaluating the inconsistency and certainty of the evidence.

CONCLUSION

This systemic review and NMA suggested that nonpharmacological interventions show promise for reducing psychological symptoms among patients with CLBP. In particular, mind body therapy and a biopsychosocial approach show considerable promise, and mind body therapy can be considered a priority choice in reducing depression and anxiety. These findings can aid clinicians in assessing the potential risks and benefits of available treatments for CLBP comorbidity with psychological symptoms and provide evidence for selecting interventions in clinical practice. More RCTs involving different interventions with rigorous methodology and an adequate sample size should be conducted in future research.

Clinical Applications of Virtual Reality in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review

(1) Background: VR is based on a virtual world that creates sounds effects and videos that replace the real environment. Arising literature shows VR efficacy in the field of neurological rehabilitation (NR) and that its use is also taking a place in musculoskeletal rehabilitation (MSR), as a treatment of various disorders that cause disability and chronic pain. (2) Aim: We discuss the role of VR in MSR, presenting its use and development on acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders, based on the most recent literature. (3) Design and Methods: Literature searches were conducted in the databases Pubmed and Medline up to 30 September 2023. The PRISMA-Scr Checklist was followed. (4) Results: A total of 51 records were included. The analysed studies were conducted within a variety of populations, musculoskeletal disorders, settings, and VR technologies. Only a few studies could statistically affirm the efficacy of VR in MSR, as mentioned for the rehabilitation of the upper limb. Nevertheless, the observed trend is an improvement of the global perceived effect compared to traditional rehabilitation. (5) Conclusion: VR allows for the personalisation of treatment with an adaptable treatment platform, which may improve the participation of the patient and increase acceptability and adherence to long-term rehabilitation programs. We provide recommendations and suggestions for future research and use of VR in musculoskeletal rehabilitation.

Digital Therapeutics (DTx) Expand Multimodal Treatment Options for Chronic Low Back Pain: The Nexus of Precision Medicine, Patient Education, and Public Health

Digital therapeutics (DTx, software as a medical device) provide personalized treatments for chronic diseases and expand precision medicine beyond pharmacogenomics-based pharmacotherapies. In this perspective article, we describe how DTx for chronic low back pain (CLBP) can be integrated with pharmaceutical drugs (e.g., NSAIDs, opioids), physical therapy (PT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and patient empowerment. An example of an FDA-authorized DTx for CLBP is RelieVRx, a prescription virtual reality (VR) app that reduces pain severity as an adjunct treatment for moderate to severe low back pain. RelieVRx is an immersive VR system that delivers at-home pain management modalities, including relaxation, self-awareness, pain distraction, guided breathing, and patient education. The mechanism of action of DTx is aligned with recommendations from the American College of Physicians to use non-pharmacological modalities as the first-line therapy for CLBP. Herein, we discuss how DTx can provide multimodal therapy options integrating conventional treatments with exposome-responsive, just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAI). Given the flexibility of software-based therapies to accommodate diverse digital content, we also suggest that music-induced analgesia can increase the clinical effectiveness of digital interventions for chronic pain. DTx offers opportunities to simultaneously address the chronic pain crisis and opioid epidemic while supporting patients and healthcare providers to improve therapy outcomes.