Characterizing Consumer Smartphone Apps for Virtual Reality-Based Exposure Therapy: Content Analysis.
Characterizing Consumer Smartphone Apps for Virtual Reality-Based Exposure Therapy: Content Analysis.
复制标题
描述消费者智能手机应用程序的虚拟现实暴露疗法：内容分析。
DOI：
10.2196/41807
复制
发表时间：
2023-04-14
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Bunnell, Brian E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sunkara, Charvi;Thakkar, Rajvi;Ong, Triton;Bunnell, Brian E.
关键词：
体内暴露疗法是最有效的治疗恐惧症，但往往是不切实际的。虚拟现实暴露疗法（VRET）可以帮助克服体内暴露疗法的关键障碍。然而，与VRET相关的无障碍移动的软件尚未得到很好的理解。我们研究的目的是描述具有临床VRET潜在效用的可访问智能手机应用程序的情况。我们对截至2020年3月在Google Play Store和Apple App Store上公开的与虚拟现实相关的智能手机应用程序进行了内容分析。最初的搜索产生了525个应用程序，其中84个应用程序（52个在Google Play商店，32个在Apple App Store）被纳入分析。最常见的恐惧刺激是水体或天气事件（25/84，29.8%），其次是高度（24/84，28.6%）和动物（23/84，27.4%）。超过一半的应用程序是视觉抽象的（39/84，53.5%）。大多数应用程序是免费使用的（48/84，57.1%），其余的是免费试用的（22/84，26.2%）或需要付费使用的（14/84，16.7%），最高的使用费用是6美元。应用程序的平均整体评分为2.9星（满分为5星），但评分数量从0到49，233不等。84个应用程序中没有一个广告符合健康保险便携性和责任法案，提供监测数据的能力，提供临床医生对应用程序体验中变量的控制，或明确说明由临床医生使用或开发。没有一个被审查的智能手机应用程序是明确为恐惧症治疗而开发的。然而，84个应用程序中有16个被认为是进一步研究的理想候选者，因为它们具有可访问性，描述恐惧相关刺激，低成本或无成本以及高用户评分。这些应用程序中的大多数在视觉上是抽象的，可以免费使用，使它们成为临床暴露层次结构的一部分，具有潜在的灵活性。然而，这些应用程序均不是为临床使用而设计的，也没有为临床医生工作流程提供工具。需要对这些可访问的智能手机应用程序进行正式评估，以了解可访问的VRET解决方案的临床潜力。
In vivo exposure therapy is the most effective treatment for phobias but is often impractical. Virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) can help overcome critical barriers to in vivo exposure therapy. However, accessible mobile software related to VRET is not well understood. The purpose of our study is to describe the landscape of accessible smartphone apps with potential utility for clinical VRET. We conducted a content analysis of publicly available smartphone apps related to virtual reality on the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store as of March 2020. The initial search yielded 525 apps, with 84 apps (52 on the Google Play Store and 32 on the Apple App Store) included for analysis. The most common phobic stimulus depicted was bodies of water or weather events (25/84, 29.8%), followed by heights (24/84, 28.6%), and animals (23/84, 27.4%). More than half of the apps were visually abstract (39/84, 53.5%). Most apps were free to use (48/84, 57.1%), while the rest were free to try (22/84, 26.2%) or required payment for use (14/84, 16.7%), with the highest cost for use being US $6. The average overall app rating was 2.9 stars out of 5, but the number of ratings ranged from 0 to 49,233. None of the 84 apps advertised compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, offered the ability to monitor data, provided clinician control over variables in the app experiences, or explicitly stated use by or development with clinicians. None of the smartphone apps reviewed were explicitly developed for phobia therapy. However, 16 of the 84 included apps were considered ideal candidates to investigate further as part of treatment due to their accessibility, depiction of phobia-relevant stimuli, low or no cost, and high user scores. Most of these apps were visually abstract and free to use, making them accessible and potentially flexible as part of clinical exposure hierarchies. However, none of the apps were designed for clinical use, nor did they provide tools for clinician workflows. Formal evaluation of these accessible smartphone apps is needed to understand the clinical potential of accessible VRET solutions.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Hofmann SG;Asnaani A;Vonk IJ;Sawyer AT;Fang A
通讯作者：
Fang A
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
Meyer, Johanna M.;Farrell, Nicholas R.;Deacon, Brett J.
通讯作者：
Deacon, Brett J.
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Salokangas, Raimo K. R.;Luutonen, Sinikka;Hietala, Jarmo
通讯作者：
Hietala, Jarmo
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Hartanto D;Kampmann IL;Morina N;Emmelkamp PG;Neerincx MA;Brinkman WP
通讯作者：
Brinkman WP
影响因子：
6.9
作者：
Fava, GA;Rafanelli, C;Belluardo, P
通讯作者：
Belluardo, P