informatics

Article
Use of Virtual Reality to Reduce Anxiety and Pain of
Adults Undergoing Outpatient Procedures
Kizzanna Brown and Cynthia Foronda *
School of Nursing and Health Studies, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33146, USA; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-305-284-1525




Received: 21 August 2020; Accepted: 16 September 2020; Published: 19 September 2020


Abstract: (1) Background: Research has demonstrated that virtual reality (VR) has reduced pain and
anxiety for patients undergoing health procedures. The aim of this quality improvement project
was to implement and evaluate immersive VR as a non-pharmacological intervention to reduce pain
and anxiety in those adults undergoing outpatient procedures under monitored anesthesia care.
(2) Methods: This quality improvement project incorporated the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) model
and employed a pre/post-implementation evaluation. Seven patients used VR during outpatient
surgeries. Pain and anxiety scores were evaluated. (3) Results: Patients using VR exhibited lower
pain and anxiety scores post-procedure compared to pre-procedure. Both patients and providers
indicated high satisfaction with the VR experience. (4) Conclusions: This quality improvement project
demonstrated the successful translation of research into practice. VR is a novel intervention that can
reduce both pain and anxiety to improve the patient’s perioperative experience.

Keywords: virtual reality; pain; anxiety; virtual reality therapy; non-pharmacologic; anesthesia

1. Introduction
Over one-third of Americans who undergo procedures involving anesthesia have them outside
of the operating room (OR) [1]. This growth reflects a trend in anesthesia of increasing diagnostic
and minimally invasive outpatient procedures [2,3]. Under anesthesia care, these procedures range
from elective diagnostic procedures to lifesaving emergency situations. Anesthesia care can range
from analgesia or light sedation to general anesthesia. Anesthetic considerations and choice for one’s
anesthetic plan include main diagnosis, vital sign status, comorbidities, assessment of airway, a risk
of aspiration, ability to lie still or flat, anxiety and pain threshold. Procedures are usually performed
under light to moderate sedation with a local anesthetic with or without the use of short-acting
opioids. Increasingly, complex interventional radiology procedures call for deeper sedation and
general anesthesia [2,4]. However, aging patient populations with unstable cardiovascular disease and
comorbidities often preclude the use of general anesthesia or moderate to deep sedation [3].
Some centers use monitored anesthesia care (MAC) as a preference for procedures that were once
routinely performed under general anesthesia. During procedures, patients may be awake and aware
with varying degrees of anxiety regarding the procedures. Moreover, patients may experience the
pain of having to remain supine and immobile for the duration of the procedure. Despite the benefits
of the less-invasive anesthetic technique, some centers have experienced conversion rates to general
anesthesia as high as 17% which then negate those benefits [5].
Distraction has been shown to be an effective non-pharmacologic intervention to decrease pain
and anxiety in both children and adults. Virtual reality (VR) is one form of distraction that is a
non-pharmacologic type of anesthesia to potentially modulate pain. This modulation helps to draw
attention away from mental processing and decrease the amount or perception of pain. Specifically,
immersive VR has been found to produce greater pain reductions than other forms of distractions

Informatics 2020, 7, 36; doi:10.3390/informatics7030036 www.mdpi.com/journal/informatics

Informatics 2020, 7, 36 2 of 10

like television, listening to music or playing games [6–10]. Previous research has shown VR to be
a supportive, beneficial intervention in wound care, physical therapy, chemotherapy, venipuncture
and urologic procedures [11]. Current research has shown VRs’ effectiveness in decreasing pain and
anxiety in adult patients undergoing dressing changes for burn wounds, chemotherapy infusions,
cystoscopy and dental procedures [12–14]. VR can provide clinical value with its application in adults
undergoing outpatient procedures by offering a novel non-pharmacologic means to address common
patient needs. This innovation can lead to optimal patient care, reduced costs, fewer pharmacological
side-effects and enhanced staff and patient experiences during outpatient procedures.

1.1. Uses of VR
Current research has demonstrated the application of VR in numerous medical settings. Outpatient
settings where researchers have applied VR include periodontal scaling and root planing procedures
(N = 50) in a dental hygiene clinic [12], bone marrow aspiration and biopsy procedure (N = 97) in
an outpatient cancer center [15], serious hand injury requiring surgical wound care (N =98) in an
outpatient surgical center [16] and cystoscopy in ambulatory surgical center (N = 45) [17].
Researchers have also tested the use of VR inside the perioperative environment. This includes
orthopedic surgery under regional anesthesia (N = 20) [18], skin cancer surgery (N = 20) [19] and
endoscopic urology surgery under spinal anesthesia (N = 37) [20]. Collectively, these studies support a
role for the standard use of VR in specific contexts and settings.

1.2. Pain Distraction

VR has been most commonly used for pain distraction. Distraction, as a pain control method,
has exhibited scientific validity in the modern medical community [16,21,22]. A majority of the studies
specifically investigating pain found that the use of VR decreased the experience of pain compared
to the control group [12,16,23]. Similarly, this view is supported from the results of two systematic
reviews [11,13].
Guo et al. (2015) studied the effectiveness of VR distraction on pain among patients with hand
injury undergoing dressing change [16]. Ninety-eight patients were divided into a control group and
intervention group. The intervention group demonstrated better scores after the dressing change
(t = −30.792, p < 0.01) compared to the control group. They found a statistically significant correlation
between the level of involvement or engagement in the VR with decreased pain level (R2 = 0.5538,
p < 0.05). The authors recommended frequently assessing the patient’s level of involvement in the VR
to obtain better results.
Schwartz et al., (2020) conducted a quality improvement project intended to use VR to reduce
pain and perioperative anxiety in pediatric burn patients [24]. Forty-six children were given either VR
or distraction before dressing changes. Post treatment scores were statistically significantly different
in the intervention group with VR performing better than distraction in all measures of pain and
anxiety. The authors concluded that VR may be used as a non-pharmacologic treatment to decrease
pain and anxiety.
Promising research about AppliedVR™ (Los Angeles, CA, USA) innovative platform has shown
clinical success with VR use for pain management in acute inpatient settings. For instance, Tashjian et al.,
(2017) aimed to measure the impact of a one-time 3D VR intervention versus a two-dimensional (2D)
distraction video for pain in hospitalized patients (N = 100) [23]. The results of this comparative
cohort study found a significant mean pain reduction (p = 0.008) in hospitalized patients vs. those who
exposed to a controlled distraction video.

1.3. Anxiety
The majority of the research highlighted in the past five years on VR found it to be
efficacious [12,16,19,20,23,25]. Dehghan et al., (2019) studied the effect of virtual reality technology on
preoperative anxiety in children [26]. Forty children were randomized into two groups—a control group
Informatics 2020, 7, 36 3 of 10

and an intervention group using VR. Results demonstrated significant changes in the intervention
group from baseline to post-test (p < 0.05). The authors concluded that VR reduced anxiety in children
in the perioperative setting [26]. Sweta et al. (2019) studied the use of VR in pain perception of patients
following the administration of local anesthesia [27]. Fifty patients were placed into a control group or
intervention group using VR. The researchers obtained statistically significant results for preoperative
and postoperative oxygen saturation, intraoperative pulse rate and postoperative visual analog scale
pain scale [27]. Findings from Moon et al. (2018) suggested that VR performed significantly better
than the use of the medication midazolam on patients’ (p = 0.042) and anesthesiologists’ (p = 0.001)
satisfaction scores [20]. Further, three systematic reviews concluded that VR demonstrated effectiveness
in reducing acute and procedural pain through a distraction mechanism which may contribute to an
anxiolytic effect [11,13,28].
Therefore, the summarized results indicate that immersive VR is a viable non-pharmacologic
method for both pain and anxiety control. The findings promote its use and its potential for positive
clinical outcomes within a variety of clinical settings. Based on the synthesis of the research, the
decision was made to move forward with a pilot quality improvement project to translate research into
practice to improve patient care in the perioperative setting.

1.4. Project Goal and Objectives

The overarching goal of this quality improvement project was to implement immersive VR as a
non-pharmacologic intervention to reduce pain and anxiety of adult patients undergoing outpatient
procedures under monitored anesthesia care. The primary objectives of this project were to (a) decrease
patient-reported pain post-procedure, (b) decrease patient-reported anxiety post-procedure, (c) increase
patient satisfaction and (d) increase provider satisfaction.

2. Materials and Methods

This practice improvement project employed a pre/post-implementation design. The Plan-Do-
Study-Act (PDSA) model was used as the methodological framework to guide the project [29].
The PDSA model is a four-step model used for carrying out change and accelerating improvement in a
healthcare system [29]. This model entails formation of the team, setting aims, establishing measures,
selecting changes, testing changes, implementing changes and spreading changes [29]. This practice
improvement project was reviewed by the Human Subjects Research Office at the University of (blinded
for review) and was determined to have met the criteria of “not human subjects research”. Therefore,
the project was not subject to review under 45 CFR 46. Additionally, the project was approved by the
chief anesthesiologist.

2.1. Site
The quality improvement project occurred at a large, urban, tertiary care medical center that served
military veterans in the Southeastern United States. The project was conducted over six weeks between
September 2019 and October 2019. The veteran population is a unique subset in which post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety are more prevalent which may correlate with increased pain scores
and more sedation to treat anxiety [30]. Thus, the use of immersive VR in the clinical setting had the
potential for a substantial impact with this patient population.
AppliedVR™. This project was completed with the use of a 3-dimensional (3D) VR by AppliedVR™
(Los Angeles, CA, USA). AppliedVR is a VR technology that projects video, graphics and sound using
a headset (Figure 1). With implementation of AppliedVR, the user’s visual perception of stimuli from
the outside world are blocked. Patients experienced 6 to 30-min VR module(s) that were specifically
designed by AppliedVR for relaxation and distraction from anxiety and pain (i.e., beach, guided
relaxation, international travel, underwater dolphin experience) (Figure 2). Patients chose the module(s)
that they felt would offer them a beneficial experience.
Informatics 2020, 7, 36 4 of 10

Informatics
Informatics2020,
2020,7,7,xx 44of
of10
10

Figure
Figure 1.1.Example
Figure1. Exampleof
Example ofaaavirtual
of virtualreality
virtual reality(VR)
reality (VR)headset
(VR) provided
headsetprovided
headset by
providedby AppliedVR.
byAppliedVR.
AppliedVR.

Figure 2. Example
Figure patient view using the AppliedVR software.
Figure2.2.Example
Examplepatient
patientview
viewusing
usingthe
theAppliedVR
AppliedVRsoftware.
software.
2.2. Participants
2.2.
2.2.Participants
Participants
Participation was voluntary. Adults (>18 years old) admitted to the perioperative area for
Participation
Participation was
was voluntary.
voluntary. Adults
Adults (>18
(>18 years
years old)
old) admitted
admittedand to
to the
the perioperative
perioperative area
area for
for
outpatient procedures under monitored anesthesia care were screened offered participation in the
outpatient
outpatient procedures
procedures under
under monitored
monitored anesthesia
anesthesia care
care were
were screened
screened and
and offered
offered participation
participation in
in
program. Those patients with documented motion sickness and/or visual or hearing impairment were
the
the program.
program. Those
Those patients
patients with
with documented
documented motion
motion sickness
sickness and/or
and/or visual
visual or
or hearing
hearing impairment
impairment
excluded. Those who declined to participate were excluded.
were
wereexcluded.
excluded.Those
Thosewho whodeclined
declinedto toparticipate
participatewere
wereexcluded.
excluded.
2.3. Methods
2.3.
2.3.Methods
Methods
For those who agreed to participate, the headset was placed over the participants’ eyes while they
For those who agreed to to participate, the
the headset was
was placed over
over the participants’ eyes while
were For thosefor
waiting who
the agreed
procedure participate,
to begin. The headset
nurse assisted placed
the patient the
withparticipants’
fitting and eyes
use ofwhile
the
they
they were
were waiting
waiting for
for the
the procedure
procedure to
tobegin.
begin. The
The nurse
nurse assisted
assisted the
the patient
patient with
with fitting
fitting and
anduse
useofof
device. Participants wore the VR headset during their procedures and removed them post-procedure.
the device.
the device. Participants
Participants wore the VR headset during their procedures and removed them post-
Patient and provider datawore
were the VR headset
collected during their
using Qualtrics procedures
survey softwareand removed Provo,
™ (Qualtrics, them post-
UT,
procedure.
procedure. Patient
Patient and
and provider
provider data
data were
were collected
collected using
using Qualtrics
Qualtrics survey
survey software
software ™
™ (Qualtrics,
(Qualtrics,
USA). Additional evaluation metrics recorded include total sedation and opioid consumption before
Provo,
Provo, UT, USA).
UT,the
USA). Additional
Additional evaluation
evaluation metrics
metrics recorded
recorded include total sedation and
and opioid
and during procedure. Patients were offered the surveys forinclude
completion totalpre/post
sedation procedure opioid
via
consumption
consumption before
before and
and during the procedure. Patients were offered the surveys for completion
tablet. Similarly, health careduring the procedure.
providers were asked Patients
to complete were offeredpost
a survey the procedure.
surveys for completion
pre/post
pre/postprocedure
procedurevia viatablet.
tablet.Similarly,
Similarly,health
healthcare
careproviders
providerswere wereasked
askedto tocomplete
completeaasurvey
surveypost
post
procedure.
procedure.

2.4.
2.4.Measures
Measures
Informatics 2020, 7, 36 5 of 10

2.4. Measures
In order to measure the outcomes of this quality improvement project, the following instruments
were used: (a) The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain
intensity short form 3a, (b) Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI: Y-6 item) and (c) Patient
and Provider satisfaction survey. Additional data were collected, such as demographic and clinical
characteristics like age, sex, race, procedure type and any medications given during the procedure.

2.4.1. PROMIS Pain Intensity Scale

Pain was assessed using the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System
(PROMIS) pain intensity scale (v1.0) [31]. The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information
System (PROMIS) measures have been validated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for use in
the general population with adults. The PROMIS pain intensity short form 3a assesses pain intensity
over the past seven days with the last item asking patients to rate their pain intensity “right now”
on a range of 1 (had no pain) to 5 (very severe). The 3-item scale allows for a broader range of pain
assessment compared to the numerical rating (NRS) scale [31,32]. The scores are weighted to provide
cross-comparability of scores across many samples. The PROMIS pain intensity short form has been
shown to be valid and reliable with a reported Cronbach’s alpha between 0.81 and 0.95 [33].

2.4.2. Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

The Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI: Y-6 item) is a widely used tool to measure
anxiety in the clinical setting [34]. Form Y-6 assesses immediate symptoms of anxiety like “I am
worried” and “I feel calm.” Items are rated on a 4-point scale from “Not at all” to “Very much”.
Scores range from 2–80. The STAI: Y-6 item has been tested and deemed reliable and valid in different
patient populations such as adult patients undergoing cutaneous surgical procedures [35], parents of
pediatric patients in a surgical waiting area [36] and blood donors [37]. The 6-item STAI has high
reliability and concurrent validity with the original full scale. Reported Cronbach’s alpha scores range
from 0.78–0.844 and have a correlation of 0.92 to the original scale [35–38]. Permission was received
from Mind Garden, Inc. to use the tool.

2.4.3. Patient and Provider Satisfaction Survey

A post-procedure questionnaire was used to collect data on patient and staff satisfaction related to
VR experience. This two-item survey was developed by the project director based off of the literature.
The patient and providers were asked the following question: Were you satisfied with your overall VR
experience? The survey offered a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1-Very Dissatisfied) to (5-Very
Satisfied). An open-ended item for comments was also included.

2.5. Data Analysis

Data were aggregated via Qualtrics and imported into Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond,
WA, USA). Data were analyzed using paired t-tests on Microsoft Excel, version 16.28. The p-value
considered significant was set at a level of p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Demographics

Twelve patients screened were eligible for participation, but only data from seven patients were
included. Three patients become ineligible after the anesthetic plan was changed to general anesthesia
and two patients chose not to participate because they were not interested in using the technology.
All participants were men with ages 45–74 years old. Four participants identified as Black and three
participants identified as White. The most frequent procedure conducted was hand surgery (Table 1).
Informatics 2020, 7, 36 6 of 10

Table 1. Procedure types.

Procedure Type Number

Carpal Tunnel Release 4
AVF Revision 1
Biopsy and debridement of finger 1
Angiogram 1

3.2. Post-op Pain

Pre/post-test scores from the PROMIS pain intensity short form 3a were examined. The patients’
mean pre-test score was 56.05. The patients’ mean post-test score was 20.47. This reduction in pain
was statistically significant (p = 0.036).

3.3. Post-op Anxiety

The patients’ mean pre-test score on the STAI was 33.81. The patients’ mean post-test score was
20.48. Anxiety scores demonstrated a statistically significant reduction (p = 0.033).

3.4. Patient Satisfaction

All patients indicated satisfaction with their VR experience. Eighty-six percent of patients rated
their VR experience as a whole as “Very Satisfied” (M = 4.86, SD = 0.35). Patients reported in the
comments section that it worked well for taking their mind off being in the OR and that they enjoyed
the experience.

3.5. Provider Satisfaction

Providers were satisfied with their VR experience. Eighty-six percent of providers rated their
VR experience as a whole as “Very Satisfied” (M = 4.71, SD = 0.70). The remaining fourteen percent
reported their experience as neutral. Providers reported that VR made surgery a positive experience
instead of a frightening one and decreased the amount of intraoperative anxiolytics required.

4. Discussion
This practice improvement project suggested that the use of VR was effective in reducing pain
and anxiety for patients undergoing surgical and non-surgical procedures. The results of this practice
improvement project suggest that the patient and provider experience during surgical procedures under
monitored anesthesia care can be enhanced with the use of immersive VR. These findings resonate
with existing research suggesting that VR can assist in the reduction of pain and anxiety [12,16,19,23].
The results of this quality improvement project evaluation are a contribution to the literature. First,
the pilot program demonstrated the successful translation of research into practice. As the body of
evidence in virtual reality repeatedly has supported the utility of VR as an effective non-pharmacologic
solution, what is lagging at this time is its widespread implementation or adoption into standard
practice. The results of this project are similar to the work of Schwartz and colleagues who conducted
a quality improvement project demonstrating reductions of perioperative pain and anxiety in the
context of children who suffered from burns [24]. As much of the literature about VR includes literature
reviews, methods papers and research studies, this quality improvement paper contributes by bringing
attention to implementation science and evidence-based practice in the nursing context of VR in the
perioperative setting.

4.1. Limitations
This quality improvement project was limited in several ways. The project was conducted over
six weeks which limited the number of participants obtained. Further, as this quality improvement
project was not a formal research study, the results are not generalizable. There was no comparative
Informatics 2020, 7, 36 7 of 10

cohort so it remains unknown how the VR would have compared to the traditional standard of care.
All participants were male, but the veteran population is mostly male. Lastly, individuals who may
have benefitted from the VR may not have fit the inclusion criteria of this project and may not have
been invited to participate (i.e., those not under monitored anesthesia care). The target population was
quite narrow as it was only a pilot project.

4.2. Lessons Learned

Certain challenges arose during the implementation of this project. They included the frequent
correction of the orientation view shown on the headset. Patients reported the picture view being off
center, sideways or diagonal right after placement of the headset in the OR which took time to readjust.
These orientation problems only occurred with the patient lying down. Re-centering the device was
difficult with the patient lying flat on the OR table. Fixing the problem took time away from actually
starting the VR experiences. For this reason, it is recommended to have a designated person present
who is trained in use of the device for successful implementation.
The operating room environment is a dynamic environment with time constraints, so having a
designated person available was helpful for successful recruitment of patients pre-operatively and to
provide assistance intraoperatively. VR experiences ranged from six to thirty minutes so length of the
procedure should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to use VR. Some patients
were able to navigate through the device to find additional virtual experiences, but others required
assistance to navigate to other virtual experiences which required removal of the headset and resulted
in time spent re-centering the device.
Concerns were raised regarding physician–patient interaction and being able to follow instructions
during some surgical procedures. However, it was observed that patients were still able to interact
with their surgeon. Patients appeared to have no problems following commands when prompted
during their surgery.
Of note, although VR is a new and exciting technology, it may not be for everyone. Reasons patients
decided against the use of VR included the patients wanting to sleep during their procedure and
others who preferred to stay aware of their surroundings. Based on these anecdotal findings, it was
apparent that patients should still be offered choices regarding their preference of use of VR or
traditional methods.

4.3. Impact
Application of VR can have a significant impact on nursing practice by providing a non-pharmacologic
solution to reduce the pain and anxiety that often accompany surgical procedures. A primary impact is
the enhancement of patient satisfaction by providing positive, customizable experiences that empower
patients through offering them choices. Second, the use of VR may lead to the sparing of opioids and
sedation, thereby decreasing side effects. Third, with decreased medications, therein lies potential
for reduced postoperative recovery times and decreased healthcare related costs. Additionally,
findings from this project may inspire other clinical settings and patient populations to use VR as a
non-pharmacologic solution.
Further research is recommended to explore perioperative use of VR in obstetrics during labor with
epidural placement, pediatrics for preoperative anxiety use, adults for preoperative anxiety reduction,
preoperative use for venipuncture, postoperatively for peripheral nerve block placement and in other
appropriate surgical and non-surgical situations where the patient is wide awake. Perhaps, in the future,
the integration of immersive VR to improve the patient experience will become standard practice.
Informatics 2020, 7, 36 8 of 10

5. Conclusions
This quality improvement project supported the implementation of immersive VR in the
perioperative setting to reduce adult patient anxiety and pain. VR is a viable non-pharmacologic
intervention that research has supported to be effective, yet it has not been widely integrated into
mainstream clinical practice. This project serves to advance evidence-based practice in the perioperative
clinical setting. Future efforts are warranted to increase the diffusion and adoption of VR to improve
patient care.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.B. and C.F; methodology, K.B. and C.F; formal analysis, K.B.;
writing—original draft preparation, K.B.; writing—review and editing, C.F. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The activities of the second author reported here were supported (in part) by the Josiah Macy
Jr. Foundation.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. American Society of Anesthesiologists. More Americans undergo procedures involving anesthesia outside
the O.R. 2016. Available online: https://www.asahq.org/about-asa/newsroom/news-releases/2016/10/more-
americans-undergo-procedures-involving-anesthesia-outside-or (accessed on 23 July 2020).
2. Minton, J.D.; Daly, D.J. Anaesthesia outside the theatre environment. Anaesth. Intensive Care Med. 2017, 18,
410–413. [CrossRef]
3. Rosero, E.; Joshi, G. Ambulatory anesthesia in remote locations. Curr. Opin. Anaesthesiol. 2016, 6, 412–419.
[CrossRef]
4. Woodward, Z.G.; Urman, R.D.; Domino, K.B. Safety of non-operating room anesthesia: A closed claims
update. Anesthesiol. Clin. 2017, 35, 569–581. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Kimmel, J.; Potosky, R.; Williams, M.R.; Glading, M.; Neuburger, P.J.; Roberts, J.D.; Feider, A. Conversion from
Monitored Anesthesia Care to General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J. Cardiothorac.
Vasc. Anesth. 2018, 32, 1032–1040. [CrossRef]
6. Mahrer, N.; Gold, J. The use of virtual reality for pain control: A review. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 2009, 13,
100–109. [CrossRef]
7. Malloy, K.M.; Milling, L.S. The effectiveness of virtual reality distraction for pain reduction: A systematic
review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 30, 1011–1018. [CrossRef]
8. McSherry, T.; Atterbury, M.; Gartner, S.; Helmold, E.; Mazzacano Searles, D.; Schulman, C. Randomized,
crossovers study of immersive virtual reality to decrease opioid use during painful wound care procedures
in adults. J. Burn Care Res. 2018, 39, 278–285. [CrossRef]
9. Morris, D.L.; Louw, Q.A.; Grimmer-Somers, K. The effectiveness of virtual reality on reducing pain and
anxiety in burn injury patients: A systematic review. Clin. J. Pain 2009, 25, 815–826. [CrossRef]
10. Shahrbanian, S.; Ma, X.; Aghaei, N.; Korner-Bitensky, N.; Moshiri, K.; Simmonds, M.J. Use of virtual reality
(immersive vs. non immersive) for pain management in children and adults: A systematic review of evidence
from randomized controlled trials. Eur. J. Exp. Biol. 2012, 2, 1408–1422.
11. Indovina, P.; Barone, D.; Gallo, L.; Chirico, A.; De Pietro, G.; Giordano, A. Virtual reality as a distraction
intervention to relieve pain and distress during medical procedures: A comprehensive literature review.
Clin. J. Pain 2018, 34, 858–877. [CrossRef]
12. Alshatrat, S.M.; Alotaibi, R.; Sirois, M.; Malkawi, Z. The use of immersive virtual reality for pain control
during periodontal scaling and root planing procedures in dental hygiene clinic. Int. J. Dent. Hyg. 2019, 17,
71–76. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Gupta, A.; Scott, K.; Dukewich, M. Innovative technology using virtual reality in the treatment of pain: Does
it reduce pain via distraction, or is there more to it? Pain Med. 2018, 19, 151–159. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Mosadeghi, S.; Reid, M.W.; Martinez, B.; Rosen, B.T.; Spiegel, B.M.R. Feasibility of an immersive virtual
reality intervention for hospitalized patients: An observational cohort study. JMIR Ment. Health 2016, 3, e28.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Informatics 2020, 7, 36 9 of 10

15. Glennon, C.; McElroy, S.F.; Connelly, L.M.; Lawson, L.M.; Bretches, A.M.; Gard, A.R.; Newcomer, L.R. Use of
virtual reality to distract from pain and anxiety. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2018, 45, 545. [CrossRef]
16. Guo, C.; Deng, H.; Yang, J. Effect of virtual reality distraction on pain among patients with hand injury
undergoing dressing change. J. Clin. Nurs. 2015, 24, 115–120. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Walker, M.; Kallingal, G.J.; Musser, J.E.; Folen, R.; Stetz, M.C.; Clark, J.Y. Treatment efficacy of virtual reality
distraction in the reduction of pain and anxiety during cystoscopy. Mil. Med. 2014, 179, 891–896. [CrossRef]
18. Chan, P.Y.; Scharf, S. Virtual reality as an adjunctive nonpharmacological sedative during orthopedic surgery
under regional anesthesia: A pilot and feasibility study. Anesth. Analg. 2017, 125, 1200–1202. [CrossRef]
19. Ganry, L.; Hersant, B.; Sidahmed-Mezi, M.; Dhonneur, G.; Meningaud, J.P. Using virtual reality to control
preoperative anxiety in ambulatory surgery patients: A pilot study in maxillofacial and plastic surgery.
J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2018, 119, 257–261. [CrossRef]
20. Moon, J.Y.; Shin, J.; Chung, J.; Ji, S.H.; Ro, S.; Kim, W.H. Virtual reality distraction during endoscopic urologic
surgery under spinal anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Med. 2018, 8, 2. [CrossRef]
21. Johnson, M. How does distraction work in the management of pain? Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 2005, 9, 90–95.
[CrossRef]
22. Valet, M.; Sprenger, T.; Boecker, H.; Willoch, F.; Rummeny, E.; Conrad, B.; Erhard, P.; Tolle, T.R. Distraction
modulates connectivity of the cingulo-frontal cortex and the midbrain during pain—An fMRI analysis. Pain
2004, 109, 399–408. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Tashjian, V.C.; Mosadeghi, S.; Howard, A.R.; Lopez, M.; Dupuy, T.; Reid, M.; Martinez, B.; Ahmed, S.;
Dailey, F.; Robbins, K.; et al. Virtual Reality for Management of Pain in Hospitalized Patients: Results of a
Controlled Trial. JMIR Ment. Health 2017, 4, e9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Schwartz, H.J.; Fagan, S.; Craft-Coffman, B.; Truelove, C.A.; Mullins, R.F. Virtual reality for reducing pain
and perioperative anxiety in pediatric burn patients. J. Burn Care Res. 2020, 41, S83–S84. [CrossRef]
25. Šalkevicius, J.; Damaševičius, R.; Maskeliunas, R.; Laukienė, I. Anxiety level recognition for virtual reality
therapy system using physiological signals. Electronics 2019, 8, 1039. [CrossRef]
26. Dehghan, F.; Jalali, R.; Bashiri, H. The effect of virtual reality technology on preoperative anxiety in children:
A Solomon four-group randomized clinical trial. Perioper. Med. 2019, 8, 5. [CrossRef]
27. Sweta, V.R.; Abhinav, R.P.; Ramesh, A. Role of virtual reality in pain perception of patients following the
administration of local anesthesia. Ann. Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 9, 110–113. [CrossRef]
28. Dascal, J.; Reid, M.; IsHak, W.W.; Spiegel, B.; Recacho, J.; Rosen, B.; Danovitch, I. Virtual reality and medical
inpatients: A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials. Innov. Clin. Neurosci. 2017, 14, 14–21.
29. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) Worksheet. Available online: http:
//www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/PlanDoStudyActWorksheet.aspx (accessed on 5 August 2020).
30. Rapoport, Y.; Wayman, L.L.; Chomsky, A.S. The effect of post-traumatic-stress-disorder on intra-operative
analgesia in a veteran population during cataract procedures carried out using retrobulbar or topical
anesthesia: A retrospective study. (Report). BMC Ophthalmol. 2017, 17. [CrossRef]
31. PROMIS Health Organization. Pain Intensity: A brief Guide to the PROMIS ®Pain Intensity Instruments.
Available online: http://www.healthmeasures.net/images/PROMIS/manuals/PROMIS_Pain_Intensity_
Scoring_Manual.pdf. (accessed on 5 August 2020).
32. Talaei-Khoei, M.; Ogink, P.T.; Jha, R.; Ring, D.; Chen, N.; Vranceanu, A.-M. Cognitive intrusion of pain and
catastrophic thinking independently explain interference of pain in the activities of daily living. J. Psychiatr.
Res. 2017, 91, 156–163. [CrossRef]
33. Deyo, R.A.; Ramsey, K.; Buckley, D.I.; Michaels, L.; Kobus, A.; Eckstrom, E.; Forro, V.A.; Morris, C.
Performance of a patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) Short Form in
older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain Med. 2016, 17, 314–324. [CrossRef]
34. Jaruzel, C.B.; Gregoski, M.J. Instruments to measure preoperative acute situational anxiety: An integrative
review. AANA J. 2017, 85, 31–35. [PubMed]
35. Alam, M.; Roongpisuthipong, W.; Kim, N.A.; Goyal, A.; Swary, J.H.; Brindise, R.T.; Iyengar, S.; Pace, N.;
West, D.P.; Polavarapu, M.; et al. Utility of recorded guided imagery and relaxing music in reducing patient
pain and anxiety, and surgeon anxiety, during cutaneous surgical procedures: A single-blinded randomized
controlled trial. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2016, 75, 585–589. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Robinson, E.M.; Baker, R.; Hossain, M. Randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of coloring on decreasing
anxiety among parents in a pediatric surgical waiting area. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 2018. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Informatics 2020, 7, 36 10 of 10

37. Chell, K.; Waller, D.; Masser, B. The blood donor anxiety scale: A six-item state anxiety measure based on the
Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Transfusion 2016, 56, 1645–1653. [CrossRef]
38. Marteau, T.M.; Bekker, H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 1992, 31, 301–306. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).