BackgroundImprovements in software and design and reduction in cost have made virtual reality (VR) a practical tool for immersive, three-dimensional (3D), multisensory experiences that distract patients from painful stimuli.ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to measure the impact of a onetime 3D VR intervention versus a two-dimensional (2D) distraction video for pain in hospitalized patients.MethodsWe conducted a comparative cohort study in a large, urban teaching hospital in medical inpatients with an average pain score of ≥3/10 from any cause. Patients with nausea, vomiting, dementia, motion sickness, stroke, seizure, and epilepsy and those placed in isolation were excluded. Patients in the intervention cohort viewed a 3D VR experience designed to reduce pain using the Samsung Gear Oculus VR headset; control patients viewed a high-definition, 2D nature video on a 14-inch bedside screen. Pre- and postintervention pain scores were recorded. Difference-in-difference scores and the proportion achieving a half standard deviation pain response were compared between groups.ResultsThere were 50 subjects per cohort (N=100). The mean pain reduction in the VR cohort was greater than in controls (−1.3 vs −0.6 points, respectively; P=.008). A total of 35 (65%) patients in the VR cohort achieved a pain response versus 40% of controls (P=.01; number needed to treat=4). No adverse events were reported from VR.ConclusionsUse of VR in hospitalized patients significantly reduces pain versus a control distraction condition. These results indicate that VR is an effective and safe adjunctive therapy for pain management in the acute inpatient setting; future randomized trials should confirm benefit with different visualizations and exposure periods.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02456987; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02456987 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6pJ1P644S)

Objectives Therapeutic virtual reality (VR) has emerged as an effective, drug-free tool for pain management, but there is a lack of randomized, controlled data evaluating its effectiveness in hospitalized patients. We sought to measure the impact of on-demand VR versus “health and wellness” television programming for pain in hospitalized patients. Methods We performed a prospective, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial in hospitalized patients with an average pain score of ≥3 out of 10 points. Patients in the experimental group received a library of 21 VR experiences administered using the Samsung Gear Oculus headset; control patients viewed specialized television programming to promote health and wellness. Clinical staff followed usual care; study interventions were not protocolized. The primary outcome was patient-reported pain using a numeric rating scale, as recorded by nursing staff during usual care. Pre- and post-intervention pain scores were compared immediately after initial treatment and after 48- and 72-hours. Results There were 120 subjects (61 VR; 59 control). The mean within-subject difference in immediate pre- and post-intervention pain scores was larger in the VR group (-1.72 points; SD 3.56) than in the control group (-0.46 points; SD 3.01); this difference was significant in favor of VR (P < .04). When limited to the subgroup of patients with severe baseline pain (≥7 points), the effect of VR was more pronounced vs. control (-3.04, SD 3.75 vs. -0.93, SD 2.16 points; P = .02). In regression analyses adjusting for pre-intervention pain, time, age, gender, and type of pain, VR yielded a .59 (P = .03) and .56 (P = .04) point incremental reduction in pain versus control during the 48- and 72-hour post-intervention periods, respectively. Conclusions VR significantly reduces pain versus an active control condition in hospitalized patients. VR is most effective for severe pain. Future trials should evaluate standardized order sets that interpose VR as an early non-drug option for analgesia.

Social media reveals a wide range of themes governing patients' experience and choice with IBD biologics. The complexity of navigating their risk-benefit profiles suggests merit in creating online tailored decision tools to support IBD patients' decision-making with biologic therapies.

IntroductionChronic pain is highly prevalent and associated with a large burden of illness; there is a pressing need for safe, home-based, non-pharmacological, interventions. Virtual reality (VR) is a digital therapeutic known to be effective for acute pain, but its role in chronic pain is not yet fully elucidated. Here we present a protocol for the National Institute of Health (NIH) Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) VR trial that evaluates the effectiveness of three forms of VR for patients with chronic lower back pain (cLBP), a highly prevalent form of chronic pain.Methods and analysisThe NIH BACPAC VR trial will randomise 360 patients with cLBP into one of three arms, each administered through a head-mounted display: 1) skills-based VR, a program incorporating principles of cognitive behavioural therapy, mindful meditation and physiological biofeedback therapy using embedded biometric sensors; 2) distraction-based VR, a program using 360-degree immersive videos designed to distract users from pain; and 3) sham VR, a non-immersive program using two-dimensional videos within a VR headset. Research participants will be monitored for 12 weeks using a combination of patient-reported outcomes administered via REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture), wearable sensor data collected via Fitbit Charge 4 and electronic health record data. The primary outcome will be the NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference scale. Secondary outcomes will include PROMIS Anxiety, PROMIS Sleep Disturbance, opioid prescription data and Pain Catastrophizing Scale Short Form. A subgroup analysis will explore patient level predictors for VR efficacy.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Cedars-Sinai Health System in April 2020. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT04409353.

Background Important knowledge gaps have been identified related to the causes and symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and medical treatments and their side effects. Patients with IBD turn to social media to learn more about their disease. However, such information found on the web is misleading and often of low quality. Objective This study aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the unmet educational needs of patients with IBD and to use the resulting insights to develop a collection of freely available, evidence-based educational videos optimized for dissemination through social media. Methods We used design thinking, a human-centered approach, to guide our qualitative research methodology. We performed focus groups and interviews with a diverse sample of 29 patients with IBD. Data collection was performed in 3 phases (inspiration, ideation, and implementation) based on IDEO design thinking. Phase 1 offered insights into the needs of patients with IBD, whereas phases 2 and 3 involved ideation, prototyping, and video testing. A thematic analysis was performed to analyze the resulting data. Results Patients emphasized the need for educational videos that address their challenges, needs, and expectations. From the data analysis, 5 video topics and their content emerged: IBD treatments’ risks and benefits; how to be a self-advocate; how to stay healthy with IBD; how to cope with IBD; and educating families, friends, and colleagues about experiences of patients with IBD. Conclusions Design thinking offers a deep understanding and recognition of the unmet educational needs of patients with IBD; this approach informed the development of 5 evidence-based educational videos. Future research will formally test and disseminate these freely available videos through social media.