Review
Abstract
Background: The use of extended reality (XR), including virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), for treating pain has accelerated in the last 10 years. XR is an attractive biobehavioral intervention that may support management of pain or pain-related disability. Reviews of the literature pertaining to adults report promising results, particularly for acute procedural pain.
Objective: This study aimed to (1) summarize the available evidence with respect to feasibility, safety, and effectiveness (pain intensity) of XR for pediatric acute and chronic pain; (2) summarize assessment tools used to measure study outcomes; and (3) identify gaps in evidence to guide future research efforts.
Methods: This study is a systematic review of the literature. Multiple databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO) were searched from inception until March 2023. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were reviewed by 2 team members to determine eligibility. Articles were included if the (1) participants were aged 0 to 18 years; (2) study intervention was VR or AR; (3) study outcomes included safety, feasibility, acceptability, or effectiveness on the outcome of pain; and (4) study design was observational or interventional. Data were collected on bibliographic information; study characteristics; XR characteristics; outcome domains; outcome measures; and study findings pertaining to safety, feasibility, and effectiveness.
Results: We included 90 articles in the review. All included studies used VR, and 93% (84/90) studied VR in the context of acute pain. Of the 90 studies, 74 studies were randomized trials, and 15 studies were observational. Safety was assessed in 23 studies of acute pain, with 13 studies reporting no adverse events and 10 studies reporting events of low concern. Feasibility was assessed in 27 studies. Of the 84 studies of acute pain, 62% (52/84) reported a positive effect on pain intensity, 21% (18/84) reported no effect, and 13% (11/84) reported mixed effects. All 6 studies of chronic pain reported a positive effect on pain intensity. An evidence gap map was used to illuminate gaps in specific research areas stratified by subtypes of pain. Risk of bias assessment revealed 67 studies had a moderate risk of bias, 17 studies had a high risk, and 5 studies were deemed to be low risk.
Conclusions: The current body of literature around XR for pediatric pain is focused on acute pain with promising results of safety and effectiveness on pain intensity. The literature pertaining to chronic pain lags behind, limiting our ability to draw conclusions. The risk of bias in studies is problematic in this field, with the inherent challenge of blinding participants and researchers to the intervention. Future research should aim to measure effectiveness beyond pain intensity with a consistent approach to measuring key outcome domains and measures. Current efforts are underway to establish expert consensus on best research practices in this field.
Trial Registration: Prospero CRD42022307153; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022307153
doi:10.2196/63854
Keywords
Introduction
Acute and chronic pain are common among children [-] and can result in negative short and long-term health and mental health consequences. Within pediatric populations, acute pain can negatively impact treatment adherence such as vaccination schedules [] and routine port access [] and can worsen outcomes in the context of surgery and rehabilitation [,]. Additionally, acute pain can transition into chronic pain if not adequately assessed, managed, and treated []. If not addressed in childhood, these pain and other health-related problems often continue into adulthood and therein increase risk for functional disability and mental health challenges including depression, suicidality, and substance use, with particular concern for opioid use or misuse [-].
Technologies have been emerging to support the management of pain for both acute and chronic pain, including the integration of extended reality (XR) into clinical care. XR is most often inclusive of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), which aim to immerse a person or patient in a simulated environment that they perceive to be real []. In the context of VR, youth are transported to a new or alternative environment, while AR alters or enhances the environment in which the youth is already existing [].
The integration of XR into health care has been a rapidly growing area of clinical research and treatment, with promise surrounding the management of pain across a variety of acute and chronic conditions for youth and adults [-]. Much research has been conducted in the acute pain management context and specifically surrounding wound care, venipuncture (“needle pokes”), and minor procedures (eg, dental fluoride therapy, orthopedic pin removal). Among adults, XR has also been used commonly to manage chronic pain such as low back pain or fibromyalgia [,]. Together, results to date indicate that XR holds great promise for supporting biopsychosocial treatment for pain management for youth and adults; however, consistency in measurement as well as defined outcomes for assessing the effectiveness of XR research are missing, thereby limiting the ability to coordinate research efforts and examine effectiveness on a large scale.
One reason for the variability and the lack of consensus in technology and outcomes in XR research is related to the rapid adoption and evolution of technology (ie, hardware and software). Since the initial studies of XR for pain began in the 1980s, the rate at which XR is being evaluated and integrated into clinical care for pain management has sharply increased, with over 250 PubMed-indexed studies published since 2020 alone compared with the total 78 studies published in the 20 years preceding. Identifying a core outcome set for XR trials in pain is needed given the rapid adoption and evolution of this technology into clinical research and the potential for XR to provide breakthroughs in the treatment and management of acute and chronic pain. We undertook this task and, as a part of this effort, conducted a systematic review to summarize the current state of the literature with a specific aim toward understanding how researchers are currently assessing XR effectiveness.
Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to describe the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of XR for pediatric acute and chronic pain. Moreover, this review collated current research to establish an evidence and gap map for guiding future research efforts. Finally, given the variability in XR study treatment outcomes, this review also assessed the measurement tools that have been used to measure outcomes in XR research. Together, these findings provide an updated description of the state of the field and highlight a path forward for improving the application, feasibility, and effectiveness of XR research in the context of pediatric acute and chronic pain.
Methods
Search Strategy
The systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (#CRD42022307153). The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with a medical librarian who executed the searches. Examples of search terms (including MeSH terms) included “virtual reality,” “pain,” “treatment outcome,” “safety,” and “feasibility studies.” A randomized controlled trial (RCT) hedge or study-type filter was not applied as it was considered too limiting for the overall search. Major electronic databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO) were searched from database inception to March 2023. The full search strategy is included in .
Selection Criteria
The inclusion criteria for the current review included (1) participants aged 0 to 18 years; (2) study intervention of XR (VR or AR); (3) study outcomes of safety, feasibility, acceptability, or effectiveness on the outcome of pain; and (4) observational or interventional study design. For this review, XR was defined as “technology that blurs the lines between the physical and virtual worlds, creating a sense of immersion and enhancing the realism of virtual experiences” [-]. Additionally, the age criterion was not applied until screening to allow for a comprehensive search of the literature.
Studies were excluded from the review if they were reviews, opinion papers, case studies with ≤4 participants, or conference proceedings. Studies in which the participant sample was exclusively adults (>18 years old) were excluded as well as studies in which the intervention was not deemed to align with the definition of XR (eg, intervention delivered on a computer screen or flat board display panel) or where there was insufficient description of the hardware to determine whether the intervention met the definition of XR. Although no uniform definition nor criterion exists for defining XR as immersive or not immersive, through group discussion and guided by existing definitions [], we excluded technology where the user only existed in the real world (eg, looking at a 2D image on a computer). If a reviewer was uncertain about whether the XR trial was immersive, additional review of the study and group discussion were used to determine whether the paper was included in the review. Papers that were not available in the English language were also excluded from the review.
Study Selection
Following completion of each of the systematic literature searches, 2 reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for inclusion following established PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) strategies. Disagreements between raters were resolved by a third reviewer. Following initial review of title and abstracts, a subsequent review of retained studies was completed, reviewing complete texts to evaluate for inclusion. Disagreements between raters were resolved by the same third reviewer. All screening was completed through Covidence [], a web-based collaboration software platform that streamlines systematic review management and allows for blinded, independent review of included studies.
Assessment of Study Quality
Assessment Tools
For studies that assessed the effectiveness of the XR intervention, a study risk of bias assessment was conducted. For RCTs, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB-2) was used, and for nonrandomized studies, the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) was used. The risk of bias assessment was completed by 2 separate groups with one group conducting risk of bias for the RCTs and the other group conducting risk of bias for the nonrandomized trials. Given the distinct tools used for each group, it was deemed appropriate to allow for 2 separate coding groups.
Risk of Bias in RCTs
To assess the RCTs, the 2 reviewers used and adhered to the RoB-2 protocol []. RoB-2 serves as an algorithmic framework for considering the risk of bias in the outcomes of RCTs []. The tool asks reviewers to rate the bias in RCT protocols among 5 domains: (1) randomization process, (2) deviations from intended interventions, (3) missing outcome data, (4) measurement of the outcome, and (5) selection. Reviewers evaluated the studies independently then met to discuss agreement on rating. If the raters disagreed on a rating, a third rater resolved the disagreement. Each domain was assigned an algorithm result and an assessor’s judgement of Low, Some Concerns, or High. The overall bias followed the same 3 outcomes.
Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies
To assess the nonrandomized studies (eg, observational, interventional without control), the reviewers used MINORS []. MINORS consists of 12 method-oriented items (eg, “A clearly stated aim”) to assess quality and risk of bias in nonrandomized studies. Each item is rated on a scale from 0 to 2, with 0 indicating that the item was not reported, 1 indicating that the item was reported but inadequate, and 2 indicating the item was reported and adequate. MINORS can be used for studies with or without a comparator group, with the first 8 items applying to all studies and the final 4 items specific to comparative studies. Total scores for noncomparative studies range from 0 to 16, and total scores for comparative studies range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more methodological integrity. For this review, 2 raters independently rated each of the nonrandomized studies then met to compare. Each of the 12 items as well as the total scores were compared between raters. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion and, if needed, through consultation with a third rater.
Data Extraction
A data extraction form was created and pilot tested to ensure relevant data were pulled based on the form directions. A team of research assistants was trained on the data extraction form, and each research assistant independently extracted data for their assigned studies. Data extracted included study characteristics (participants, design, setting, control group), intervention characteristics (hardware, software, intervention protocols), outcome domains (safety, feasibility, effectiveness), outcome measures used, and a summary of study findings.
Data Coding (Evidence Gap Map)
All included studies were uploaded to EPPI Reviewer, software designed for systematic reviews and in support of developing evidence and gap maps. Using existing literature, authors CWH and GM developed operational definitions for each of the pain populations and target outcomes, which were reviewed by the larger author group and iterated until a final draft was created then used to guide coding of the studies. To code studies for the evidence and gap map, reviewers were assigned a series of studies in EPPI Reviewer and were asked to review the manuscript and code each article for the patient population (adult or pediatrics), pain population, and outcomes targeted by VR. Two training meetings were held with all reviewers to provide operational definitions, and they were asked to code a single article. A subsequent meeting was held to provide feedback and answer questions to increase consistency across coding. Once all articles were coded, any articles identified as unclear were reviewed again by a single author. Operational definitions are provided in .
Data Synthesis
Included studies were summarized, and fulsome details of all included studies are provided in . Additionally, descriptive statistics were used to synthesize study characteristics and aims as well as intervention characteristics. To synthesize data pertaining to outcome domains, an evidence and gap map was created. To create the evidence and gap map, 7 reviewers independently coded each study according to the study population including age (pediatric, adult) and pain type (acute pain-venipuncture, acute pain-wound care, acute pain-procedural, acute pain-other, chronic pain-cancer related, chronic pain-postsurgical/trauma, chronic pain-headache/migraine, chronic pain-musculoskeletal, chronic pain-neuropathic, chronic pain-other), as well as the pain-related outcomes targeted by the XR intervention (user experiences, participation/engagement, cognitive, behavioral, physical functioning, pain intensity, quality of life, health care utilization, safety, feasibility). Each study was also coded according to its established risk of bias (low, moderate, high). Coding was conducted through EPPI Reviewer [], a collaborative web-based research synthesis software that supports study classification, and EPPI Mapper, a web-based program that generates evidence and gap maps based on coding conducted in EPPI Reviewer. Finally, for each of the identified pain treatment targets, the measures used to assess those targets were extracted by 2 authors and summarized to indicate the number of unique measures reported for each treatment target, and the number of studies that used the measure.
Results
Article Identification
The search identified 2656 articles across the 5 identified databases. Of the articles identified, 1041 duplicates were identified and removed prior to abstract and title screening. We screened 1615 articles for inclusion based on abstract and title, and 1125 were removed based on relevancy to the review. Of the remaining 490 studies, 15 could not be located, so 475 full-text articles were screened for inclusion. Of those, 90 studies were included in the review. The most common reason for exclusion was that the study sample was exclusively adult (170 studies) followed by determination that the XR technology was not immersive (79 studies). See 
Figure 1 for additional information related to the screening process.
Study Characteristics
Of the included articles, all 90 studies used VR technology, and no studies reported the use of AR technology. As such, when discussing XR for pediatric pain management, currently this is exclusively VR technology. Additionally, the majority of studies focused on assessment of VR in pediatric acute pain (84/90, 93%), specifically venipuncture (40/90, 48%) [-], burn dressing and wound care (15/90, 18%) [-], and minor procedures (26/90, 31%) [,-], as well as other acute pain (3/90, 3%; ie, acute pain in emergency department, acute upper limb rehabilitation, vaso-occlusive crisis) [-]. A much smaller number of studies (n=6) examined the utility of VR in chronic pain populations including intensive pain rehabilitation (n=1) [], chronic burn dressing (n=1) [], chronic musculoskeletal pain (n=1) [], chronic cancer-related pain (n=2) [,], and chronic abdominal pain (n=1) []. See 
Figure 2 for the summary of pain populations included across the studies. Within the 90 included studies, there were a total of 6596 participants enrolled, including 3615 enrolled in intervention arms and 2981 enrolled in control arms. Study sample sizes ranged from 5 to 254. Across studies, 3631 participants were male, while 2929 were female. The age of the participants ranged from 3 years to 18 years. Among participants enrolled in the intervention group, the mean age was 11.07 (SD 2.64) years, and in the control groups, the mean age was 10.38 (SD 2.37) years. Most studies (84/90, 93%) evaluated the use of XR in the context of pediatric acute pain management, while 7% (6/90) of the studies focused on XR in the context of pediatric chronic pain. Most studies took place in a hospital setting (63/90, 70%), and interventions were most often delivered by a researcher (36/90, 40%) or nurse (19/90, 21%). Regarding intervention design, an RCT was used 82% (74/90) of the time. See 
Table 1 for a full description of the study characteristics.
| Characteristic | Studies, n (%) | ||
| Acute pain (n=84) | |||
| Venipuncture | 40 (45) | ||
| Procedural | 26 (32) | ||
| Wound care | 15 (18) | ||
| Other | 3 (5) | ||
| Chronic pain (n=6) | |||
| Cancer related | 2 (33) | ||
| Musculoskeletal pain | 1 (17) | ||
| Other | 3 (50) | ||
| Study design | |||
| Interventional RCTa | 74 (82) | ||
| Interventional no control | 13 (14) | ||
| Case series | 1 (1) | ||
| Prospective observational | 2 (2) | ||
| Study setting | |||
| Hospital/burn center | 69 (77) | ||
| Research | 2 (2) | ||
| Dental | 9 (10) | ||
| Home | 1 (1) | ||
| Clinical | 9 (10) | ||
| Sample size (n=6596) | |||
| VRb intervention | 3615 (55) | ||
| Control | 2981 (43) | ||
| Intervention delivered by | |||
| Registered nurse | 19 (21) | ||
| Physical therapist | 2 (2) | ||
| Dentist | 1 (1) | ||
| Other clinician | 2 (2) | ||
| Researcher | 36 (40) | ||
| Caregiver | 1 (1) | ||
| Unknown | 29 (32) | ||
aRCT: randomized controlled trial.
bVR: virtual reality.
Study Quality Assessment
Where possible, studies were examined for risk of bias based on study design. Of the 90 studies, 74 studies were evaluated using the RoB-2 assessment for randomized trials and 15 studies were evaluated using the MINORS assessment for nonrandomized interventional and observational studies. We could not assess 1 study due to the study design (ie, case series: Birnie et al []). Results of the risk of bias assessment revealed that most included studies (67/90, 74%) had a moderate risk of bias, while 17 studies (17/90, 19%) had a high risk of bias, and 5 studies (5/90, 6%) were deemed to have a low risk of bias. To see the summary of risk of bias ratings for each study, please see 
Figure 3. Although sources indicating risk of bias were variable across studies, most included studies were identified as moderate or high risk of bias due to their failure to blind study participants to the intervention and researchers to who was in the intervention arm (69 studies). Increased risk of bias was also commonly identified in the randomization procedures, although to a much lesser degree (19 studies).
XR Feasibility
Across all included studies, feasibility was evaluated 43% (39/90) of the time. Within chronic pain studies, 50% (3/6) of the studies assessed the feasibility of VR. Although limited in scope, of the 3 studies that examined feasibility, results did indicate VR to be a positive experience that supported their management of pain. Within the acute pain studies (n=84), feasibility was assessed in 35 studies. When evaluated, feasibility of VR appears to be high according to patients, caregivers, and health care staff. Feasibility was assessed in several different ways including but not limited to recruitment and withdrawal rates, satisfaction surveys, patient-reported “fun,” and provider-reported disruption in clinical flow. Recruitment rates varied but indicated moderate (40/65, 62%) to high (66/71, 93%) levels of interest in VR use, and dropout rates were reported to be low. Health care professionals also indicated good feasibility. VR was perceived to not interfere with procedure time, decrease the perceived difficulty of procedures, and be easily implementable in the clinic setting, and health care staff expressed interest in repeated use. Patients and caregivers reported ease of use, high levels of satisfaction with VR, preference for VR over alternate distraction methods, and interest in repeated use in future procedures. As such, although more consistent assessment of VR feasibility is needed, the available data from the pediatric acute pain management setting suggest that VR is acceptable and feasible across stakeholders.
XR Safety
Across included studies, safety, often measured through the presence of adverse events, was measured or reported 49% (44/90) of the time. Within the chronic pain studies, only 2 studies examined the safety of the VR intervention, so conclusions regarding the safety of VR for chronic pain populations cannot be made. Among the pediatric acute pain studies, 44 studies examined safety, limiting our ability to draw robust conclusions for safety. However, when safety or adverse events were reported, most studies (31/44, 70%) reported no adverse events or no differences between their control and VR intervention groups. When adverse events were reported, they were most often mild in nature and occurred in a minority of the participants. Rates of adverse events varied, occurring in <1% to 17% of participants, with intensity and severity of the concern low (eg, nausea rating of 4/100). Two studies reported that at least 1 participant withdrew from the intervention due to reported adverse events.
XR Effectiveness
Several treatment targets emerged through the review as relevant to the effectiveness of VR for pain management. That is, targets of VR interventions for acute and chronic pain often went beyond pain intensity itself, as measures of effectiveness spanned several domains (eg, pain intensity, physical functioning, fear, anxiety). Given the wide variety of targeted outcomes, we summarized the findings across the identified target domains for acute and chronic pain. The variability in targets highlights several areas where additional research is needed to adequately examine the effectiveness of VR for pediatric pain.
Pain intensity was examined across all included studies (n=90), and overall, VR interventions demonstrated good effectiveness for reducing pain intensity (see 
Figure 4). Among the acute pain studies, 63% (53/84) demonstrated a positive effect (statistically significant reduction in pain) of VR on pain intensity, 21% (18/84) demonstrated no effect (nonsignificant reduction in pain or no change in pain), and 12% (10/84) demonstrated a mixed effect (different results across pain measures, pain reporter, or at different time points in the intervention) on pain intensity. Mixed effect findings were often due to a variable impact of VR on pain across a procedure (eg, positive impact on postprocedural pain but no effect on pain during the procedure) or variable impact of VR on pain across informants (eg, child reported improved pain, no improvement in pain reported by health care provider). No studies reported worse pain than the control or following the VR intervention. Among the chronic pain studies, 100% (6/6) of the studies demonstrated improved pain intensity in the context of the VR intervention.
Evidence and Gap Map
There was a wide range of outcome targets across studies. We created an evidence and gap map to collate current targets of VR in pain management as well as illuminate gaps (
Figure 5). Guided by the conceptual model described by Trost et al [], we categorized studies according to their target population as well as measured outcome targets. Additionally, the risk of bias results were integrated into the evidence and gap map. Therefore, the map illustrates, across the 90 included studies, the populations and pain targets with greater amounts of research evidence and those with missing or scant research evidence as well as the quality of evidence at various intersections (eg, pediatric venipuncture research targeting anxiety and pain intensity). Specifically, for XR research, the gap map illuminated significant gaps in research using XR to support pain management in pediatric chronic pain populations. Within the chronic pain populations, no research exists related to postsurgical or trauma-related pain, headaches, or neuropathic pain. Additionally, the risk of bias across all studies was moderate to high, prompting the need for more sophisticated research designs to reduce the risk of bias, particularly as it relates to blinding the research team and study participants. Within the acute pain setting, the most studied patient populations were children undergoing venipunctures and minor procedures. Primary targets of XR intervention for acute pain include pain intensity and emotional functioning. Across acute and chronic pain, measuring the effectiveness of XR on other important outcomes such as user experience, social functioning, and quality of life are important gaps that emerged from this review.
Measures in XR Research
Across all study outcomes (feasibility, safety, effectiveness targets), there was tremendous variability in the outcome measures used. As such, we identified the number of distinct measures and the frequency of measures used across each outcome, which are summarized in Table 2. Full details of the measures used within each outcome domain can be found in . Measures in XR research include validated, study-specific, researcher-developed and researcher-adapted tools. Additionally, similar measures are often used in distinct ways to measure different outcomes. For example, some researchers used heart rate as a measure of physical functioning, while others used heart rate as a measure of anxiety. The outcome target with the highest number of measures was psychological constructs, which contained 31 distinct measures across 67 studies. This is unsurprising as psychological construct is a broad outcome inclusive of multiple psychological and emotional states including but not limited to anxiety, mood, fear of pain, and pain catastrophizing. The outcome target with the second highest number of measures was feasibility, which contained 14 distinct measures across 28 studies, followed by user experience, which contained 13 distinct measures across 18 studies. The number of measures used across studies for each outcome domain is summarized in Table 2. This review highlighted that there is little agreement regarding how best to measure outcomes in XR research, an important area for future study, particularly given the high number of researcher-developed or researcher-adapted measures currently being used.
| Outcome domain | Measures, n |
| Pain intensity | 21 |
| Adverse events | 8 |
| User experience | 13 |
| Psychological constructs | 31 |
| Pain interference | 8 |
| Feasibility | 14 |
| Health care utilization | 9 |
| Quality of life | 2 |
| Physiological markers | 10 |
Discussion
Principal Findings
Overall, in the context of pediatric acute pain, specifically venipuncture and minor procedural pain, good evidence exists to support continued use of XR, as it is effective for the management of pain and emotional functioning and demonstrates good feasibility and safety. Limited evidence exists, however, to guide the use of XR research in chronic pain populations. Although initial evidence does appear promising for the utility of XR to support pain management in several chronic pain populations (eg, cancer-related pain, abdominal pain, diffuse musculoskeletal pain), more robust examination is needed as is research that assesses the safety and feasibility of implementing XR into the flow of clinical care. Another area requiring more research in pediatric populations is the subacute period (ie, up to 3 months after injury, trauma, or surgery). Research has demonstrated this period to be a vulnerable time for the development of fear avoidance related to pain and movement, which increases the risk for the transition of acute pain to chronic pain []. XR interventions would likely be useful during this period as both a form of distraction and to support confrontation of feared movements.
This review indicates that most studies to date have been implemented within the context of a children’s hospital, which is unsurprising given the preponderance of research focused on acute pain management. However, there is limited research to guide the implementation of XR research outside the context of a hospital setting, which may be particularly important for chronic pain patients who may be receiving care across a variety of treatment settings (eg, home, outpatient clinic, physical therapy clinic). In the adult literature, XR has been successfully implemented into community care for chronic pain management [,]; however, this is unstudied in pediatric populations. The use of implementation science frameworks (eg, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) [] to evaluate contextual and personnel differences as they relate to technology integration in settings outside of a hospital can support these efforts.
This review also demonstrated that research to date has been exclusively on the use of VR in pediatric pain management, and, as such, little is known about the potential for AR to support acute and chronic pain. Exploration of the utility of AR is particularly relevant in the context of chronic pain where exposure to painful movements may benefit from gradation such that a young person is first fully distracted by immersion into a VR world then gradually progressed toward exposure of their environment using an AR system to continue to support distraction while increasing exposure to their lived environment [-].
Another finding of this review is the significant variability in the way outcomes are being measured across XR studies. That is, measurement remains an area for needed consensus to support a better ability to compare effectiveness of XR across studies. Moreover, efforts are needed and indeed underway to better define both process (eg, immersion) [] and outcome (eg, pain intensity) variables in XR trials, which will facilitate better reporting and thus improved ability to effectively compare XR across studies. Moreover, definitions of emotional functioning were also quite varied across studies, even when similar constructs were being targeted (ie, anxiety, fear, mood). Different definitions of anxiety and fear emerged across studies as well as how they were operationalized and assessed. For example, some studies assessed anxiety vis-à-vis heart rate variability and oxygen saturation, while other studies completed self-report assessments, proxy reports, and behavioral observations. Although all approaches to assessing anxiety may be valid, it limits the comparability of anxiety as an outcome across studies. Additionally, mood was examined to a much lesser degree in the reviewed studies and warrants increased attention, particularly in the context of chronic pain or acute-to-chronic pain transition. Another challenge with comparing XR effectiveness across studies is inconsistent reporting of study protocols. In this review, several studies were excluded because of an insufficient description of the XR technology. Creation of standards for reporting for XR studies, including how to describe the technology used (eg, hardware and software) and intervention protocol (eg, number of sessions, duration of intervention), is needed to increase the ability to replicate studies and compare outcomes across studies, thereby improving our ability to understand which XR approaches are most effective, when they are most effective, and for whom they are most effective.
There are also potential outcomes or targets of XR research that warrant attention, namely social and academic functioning alongside quality of life. Given the growing feasibility of real-time social interactions in the context of XR alongside established challenges for youth with pain to engage socially with peers [], examination of the potential for XR research to improve or support social functioning is an important area for future work. Building from existing literature that has demonstrated the effectiveness of virtual peer-to-peer pain groups [-], development of virtual pain groups that can target multiple domains of functioning (eg, physical functioning, social functioning) is an untapped and potentially high-yield target for XR research. Similarly, academic functioning is commonly cited as a challenge for youth with chronic pain [,], and although research is emerging in this domain [], more is needed to evaluate the potential for XR research to support academic engagement and facilitate a return to school learning for youth with pain. Finally, quality of life was minimally examined in the included studies (n=2). This is likely due to the overwhelming number of studies focused on acute pain where quality of life measures may be less relevant; however, development of quality of care measures or consideration for implementation of quality of care measures that are relevant to the acute pain context may be important to truly capture the impact of XR on patients. Moreover, as additional research is conducted in the chronic pain population, where pain and anxiety may become less of an emphasis, quality of life measures will be important markers of improvement.
Finally, decreasing the risk of bias in XR studies also emerged as an important priority for future research. That is, most studies had a moderate to high risk of bias according to the RoB-2 assessment, prompting the need for more sophisticated research designs. Specific areas where innovation is needed are addressing participant blinding to the intervention and the development of prespecified analysis plans. Given the nature of XR interventions, innovation for blinding participants to their assigned group, such as the development and use of sham XR software, is needed to decrease the risk of bias. Prepublished analysis plans and transparency surrounding blinding of the analyses are also needed.
Limitations
This systematic review has some limitations that are important to note. First, the search for this systematic review was completed in March 2023 and likely omits several manuscripts published since then. Given the rapidity of XR research in pediatrics, it was not feasible for this research group to keep pace with the rate of publication. Moreover, this review was conducted with the aim of supporting the consensus conference surrounding outcomes for pediatric XR research. Future updates to this review are needed to support ongoing identification of gaps in research and inform clinical practice. Additionally, although a strength of this review is the breadth of studies included, future research could be conducted to allow for more focused assessment of efficacy, particularly as it relates to specific patient populations and XR configurations. To this end, future research should consider the interaction of XR interventions and child development to assess whether developmental stage or chronological age impact XR feasibility, safety, or effectiveness and guide precision medicine to match the XR intervention or configuration to best meet the needs of youth across diverse developmental stages. This review assessed the risk of bias for all included studies; however, this is not synonymous with quality and should be interpreted with caution. That is, studies may have been of high quality yet received high risk of bias scores due to their lack of blinding, a common challenge faced by XR researchers. Finally, studies were limited to the English language and excluded gray literature and conference papers, which may limit the inclusion of important research published in languages other than English and could reinforce publication bias such that studies in which XR was unhelpful or not feasible are not well represented.
Conclusion
This systematic review provides an important update regarding the state of XR research for pediatric acute and chronic pain. Review of XR feasibility, safety, and effectiveness solidified the significant potential of XR for pain management across a variety of pain presentations and for a range of diverse outcomes. Moreover, the developed evidence and gap map illuminated important gaps in the current research base that warrant attention. Finally, limitations identified in the research studies reviewed also highlight the need for innovative research designs, establishment of measurement consensus, and improved reporting standards for XR studies to more effectively establish best practices in XR intervention research and improve clinical translation of the evidence base.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank medical librarian Jessie Cunningham at The Hospital for Sick Children for their assistance with development and execution of the literature search strategy. The authors would also like to thank all the research coordinators and research assistants in the Biobehavioral Pediatric Pain Lab (principal investigator [PI]: LES), Nicole Jehl, Ellison Choate, Amanda VanOrden, Hannah Nguyen, and Yerin Yang for your support in extracting data and formatting Table 1. Thank you also to the research coordinator and summer students in the Improving Outcomes in Child Health (iOUCH) lab (PI: JNS), Prabdeep Panesar, Ariane Isaac-Bertrand, and Sandy Luu, for your support in extracting data.
The authors recognize the funding from Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the planning and dissemination grant (Co-PIs: JNS and Fahad Alam) and MayDay fund (PI: DL). Additionally, BNR conducted this work during her postdoctoral fellowship at The Hospital for Sick Children and was funded by a CIHR Banting Fellowship. Across the duration of this study, authors CWH and LES were funded by the National Institutes of Health under NIAMS R21 grant AR079140. Author GM is funded by a CIHR Canada Graduate Scholarship (Doctoral) and SickKids Clinician Scientist Training Program (CSTP) scholarship.
Authors declare that there was no use of GenAI in the production of the described research, analysis or interpretation of data, or in the writing of the submitted manuscript.
Data Availability
All data from the systematic review are available upon request from primary or senior authors.
Authors' Contributions
JNS, LES, DL, and JIG were involved in the conceptualization of the study, funding acquisition, and supervision as well as data analysis and review and editing of the drafted manuscript. CWH, BNR, and GM were involved in the conceptualization of the study, data curation, formal analysis, data visualization, and writing of the manuscript. CO was involved in the data curation and offered her expertise as a person with lived experience. EC was responsible for project administration and data visualization. All authors made substantial contributions to the study and provided approval of the submitted manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
None declared.
Multimedia Appendix 2
Operational definitions of pain populations and outcome targets to guide evidence and gap map coding.
DOCX File , 21 KBMultimedia Appendix 3
Fulsome details of 90 included VR intervention studies for pediatric acute and chronic pain.
XLSX File (Microsoft Excel File), 46 KBMultimedia Appendix 4
Measures used across outcome domains in VR trials for pediatric acute and chronic pain.
XLSX File (Microsoft Excel File), 14 KBMultimedia Appendix 5
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.
DOCX File , 32 KBReferences
- Crombie IK, Croft PR, Linton SJ, LeResche L, Van Korff M. Epidemiology of Pain: A Report of the Task Force on Epidemiology of the International Association for the Study of Pain. Washington, D.C. IASP Press; 1999.
- Holley AL, Wilson AC, Palermo TM. Predictors of the transition from acute to persistent musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents: a prospective study. Pain. May 22, 2017;158(5):794-801. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- King S, Chambers CT, Huguet A, MacNevin RC, McGrath PJ, Parker L, et al. The epidemiology of chronic pain in children and adolescents revisited: a systematic review. Pain. Dec 2011;152(12):2729-2738. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Taddio A, McMurtry CM, Logeman C, Gudzak V, de Boer A, Constantin K, et al. Prevalence of pain and fear as barriers to vaccination in children - Systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine. Dec 12, 2022;40(52):7526-7537. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hedström M, Haglund K, Skolin I, von Essen L. Distressing events for children and adolescents with cancer: child, parent, and nurse perceptions. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2003;20(3):120-132. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Rosenbloom BN, Katz J. Modeling the transition from acute to chronic postsurgical pain in youth: a narrative review of epidemiologic, perioperative, and psychosocial factors. Can J Pain. Jun 09, 2022;6(2):166-174. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Rosenbloom BN, Pagé MG, Isaac L, Campbell F, Stinson JN, Wright JG, et al. Pediatric chronic postsurgical pain and functional disability: a prospective study of risk factors up to one year after major surgery. JPR. Nov 2019;Volume 12:3079-3098. [CrossRef]
- Rabbitts JA, Fisher E, Rosenbloom BN, Palermo TM. Prevalence and predictors of chronic postsurgical pain in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain. Jun 2017;18(6):605-614. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Groenewald CB, Law EF, Fisher E, Beals-Erickson SE, Palermo TM. Associations between adolescent chronic pain and prescription opioid misuse in adulthood. J Pain. Jan 2019;20(1):28-37. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Murray CB, Groenewald CB, de la Vega R, Palermo TM. Long-term impact of adolescent chronic pain on young adult educational, vocational, and social outcomes. Pain. Feb 21, 2020;161(2):439-445. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Walker LS, Dengler-Crish CM, Rippel S, Bruehl S. Functional abdominal pain in childhood and adolescence increases risk for chronic pain in adulthood. Pain. Sep 2010;150(3):568-572. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Zernikow B, Ruhe A-K, Stahlschmidt L, Schmidt P, Staratzke T, Frosch M, et al. Clinical and economic long-term treatment outcome of children and adolescents with disabling chronic pain. Pain Med. Jan 01, 2018;19(1):16-28. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Kardong-Edgren S, Farra S, Alinier G, Young H. A call to unify definitions of virtual reality. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. Jun 2019;31:28-34. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
- Milman NB. Defining and conceptualizing mixed reality, augmented reality, and virtual reality. Distance Learning; Charlotte. 2018;15(2):55-58. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
- Mallari B, Spaeth EK, Goh H, Boyd BS. Virtual reality as an analgesic for acute and chronic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain Res. 2019;12:2053-2085. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Shahrbanian S, Ma X, Aghaei N, Korner-Bitensky K, Simmonds 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. European Journal of Experimental Biology. 2012;2(5):1408-1422. [FREE Full text]
- Smith V, Warty RR, Sursas JA, Payne O, Nair A, Krishnan S, et al. The effectiveness of virtual reality in managing acute pain and anxiety for medical inpatients: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. Nov 02, 2020;22(11):e17980. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Brea-Gómez B, Torres-Sánchez I, Ortiz-Rubio A, Calvache-Mateo A, Cabrera-Martos I, López-López L, et al. Virtual reality in the treatment of adults with chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Nov 11, 2021;18(22):1. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Cortés-Pérez I, Zagalaz-Anula N, Ibancos-Losada MDR, Nieto-Escámez FA, Obrero-Gaitán E, Osuna-Pérez MC. Virtual reality-based therapy reduces the disabling impact of fibromyalgia syndrome in women: systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Pers Med. Nov 09, 2021;11(11):1167. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Lee H, Chung S, Lee W. Presence in virtual golf simulators: the effects of presence on perceived enjoyment, perceived value, and behavioral intention. New Media & Society. Nov 26, 2012;15(6):930-946. [CrossRef]
- Soliman M, Peetz J, Davydenko M. The impact of immersive technology on nature relatedness and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Media Psychology. Jan 2017;29(1):8-17. [CrossRef]
- Suh A, Prophet J. The state of immersive technology research: a literature analysis. Computers in Human Behavior. Sep 2018;86:77-90. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
- Slater M. A note on presence terminology. Presence Connect. 2003:1-5. [FREE Full text]
- Covidence. URL: https://www.covidence.org [accessed 2025-03-12]
- Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Cochrane Bias Methods Group, et al. Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. Oct 18, 2011;343(oct18 2):d5928-d5928. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Higgins JPT, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JAC. Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Second Edition. London, England. Cochrane; 2019.
- Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. Sep 2003;73(9):712-716. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- EPPI-Reviewer 4: software for research synthesis. EPPI Reviewer. URL: https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/er4/Features/tabid/3396/Default.aspx [accessed 2025-03-12]
- Alonzi S, Caruso TJ, Sindher SB, Cao S, Varadharajulu S, Collins WJ, et al. Virtual reality reduces pediatric anxiety during food allergy clinical trials: a pilot randomized, pragmatic study. Front Allergy. Jan 13, 2021;2:779804. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Althumairi A, Sahwan M, Alsaleh S, Alabduljobar Z, Aljabri D. Virtual reality: Is it helping children cope with fear and pain during vaccination? JMDH. Sep 2021;Volume 14:2625-2632. [CrossRef]
- Atzori B, Lauro Grotto R, Giugni A, Calabrò M, Alhalabi W, Hoffman HG. Virtual reality analgesia for pediatric dental patients. Front Psychol. Nov 23, 2018;9:2265. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Atzori B, Vagnoli L, Graziani D, Hoffman HG, Sampaio M, Alhalabi W, et al. An exploratory study on the effectiveness of virtual reality analgesia for children and adolescents with kidney diseases undergoing venipuncture. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Feb 17, 2022;19(4):2291. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Aydın A, Özyazıcıoğlu N. Using a virtual reality headset to decrease pain felt during a venipuncture procedure in children. J Perianesth Nurs. Dec 2019;34(6):1215-1221. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Birnie KA, Kulandaivelu Y, Jibb L, Hroch P, Positano K, Robertson S, et al. Usability testing of an interactive virtual reality distraction intervention to reduce procedural pain in children and adolescents with cancer. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2018;35(6):406-416. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Canares T, Parrish C, Santos C, Badawi A, Stewart A, Kleinman K, et al. Pediatric coping during venipuncture with virtual reality: pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Pediatr Parent. Jul 28, 2021;4(3):e26040. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Caruso TJ, George A, Menendez M, De Souza E, Khoury M, Kist MN, et al. Virtual reality during pediatric vascular access: a pragmatic, prospective randomized, controlled trial. Paediatr Anaesth. Feb 19, 2020;30(2):116-123. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Chad R, Emaan S, Jillian O. Effect of virtual reality headset for pediatric fear and pain distraction during immunization. Pain Manag. May 2018;8(3):175-179. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Chan E, Hovenden M, Ramage E, Ling N, Pham JH, Rahim A, et al. Virtual reality for pediatric needle procedural pain: two randomized clinical trials. J Pediatr. Jun 2019;209:160-167.e4. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Chang ZY, Kang GC, Koh EYL, Fong RJK, Tang J, Goh CK, et al. Immersive virtual reality in alleviating pain and anxiety in children during immunization in primary care: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Front Pediatr. Mar 25, 2022;10:847257. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Chau B, Chi B, Wilson T. Decreasing pediatric pain and agitation during botulinum toxin injections for spasticity with virtual reality: lessons learned from clinical use. PRM. Sep 26, 2018;11(3):199-204. [CrossRef]
- Chen Y, Cheng S, Lee P, Lai C, Hou I, Chen C. Distraction using virtual reality for children during intravenous injections in an emergency department: a randomised trial. J Clin Nurs. Feb 04, 2020;29(3-4):503-510. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Dumoulin S, Bouchard S, Ellis J, Lavoie KL, Vézina M-P, Charbonneau P, et al. A randomized controlled trial on the use of virtual reality for needle-related procedures in children and adolescents in the emergency department. Games Health J. Aug 2019;8(4):285-293. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Erdogan B, Aytekin Ozdemir A. The effect of three different methods on venipuncture pain and anxiety in children: distraction cards, virtual reality, and Buzzy® (randomized controlled trial). J Pediatr Nurs. May 2021;58:e54-e62. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Gerçeker GÖ, Bektaş M, Aydınok Y, Ören H, Ellidokuz H, Olgun N. The effect of virtual reality on pain, fear, and anxiety during access of a port with huber needle in pediatric hematology-oncology patients: Randomized controlled trial. Eur J Oncol Nurs. Feb 2021;50:101886. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Gerçeker GÖ, Binay ?, Bilsin E, Kahraman A, Yılmaz HB. Effects of virtual reality and external cold and vibration on pain in 7- to 12-year-old children during phlebotomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Perianesth Nurs. Dec 2018;33(6):981-989. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sanna G, Camporesi A, Diotto V, Abbiati G, Torri A, Gemma M. Virtual sedation as a substitute to pharmacological sedation during PICC placement in pediatric patients: a feasibility study. J Vasc Access. Jan 30, 2024;25(1):313-317. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Gold JI, Mahrer NE. Is virtual reality ready for prime time in the medical space? A randomized control trial of pediatric virtual reality for acute procedural pain management. J Pediatr Psychol. Apr 01, 2018;43(3):266-275. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Gold JI, SooHoo M, Laikin AM, Lane AS, Klein MJ. Effect of an immersive virtual reality intervention on pain and anxiety associated with peripheral intravenous catheter placement in the pediatric setting: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. Aug 02, 2021;4(8):e2122569. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Goldman RD, Behboudi A. Virtual reality for intravenous placement in the emergency department-a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pediatr. Mar 10, 2021;180(3):725-731. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hoag JA, Karst J, Bingen K, Palou-Torres A, Yan K. Distracting through procedural pain and distress using virtual reality and guided imagery in pediatric, adolescent, and young adult patients: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Apr 18, 2022;24(4):e30260. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hsu M, Whu Y, Lin I, Liu C, Lai F, Liu P, et al. Effectiveness of virtual reality interactive play for children during intravenous placement: a randomized controlled trial. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). May 2022;16(2):87-93. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hundert AS, Birnie KA, Abla O, Positano K, Cassiani C, Lloyd S, et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial of virtual reality distraction to reduce procedural pain during subcutaneous port access in children and adolescents with cancer. Clin J Pain. Dec 30, 2021;38(3):189-196. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- İnangil D, Şendir M, Büyükyılmaz F. Efficacy of cartoon viewing devices during phlebotomy in children: a randomized controlled trial. J Perianesth Nurs. Aug 2020;35(4):407-412. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Litwin SP, Nguyen C, Hundert A, Stuart S, Liu D, Maguire B, et al. Virtual reality to reduce procedural pain during IV insertion in the pediatric emergency department: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Clin J Pain. Feb 01, 2021;37(2):94-101. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Mohanasundari SK, Raghu VA, Joseph J, Mohan R, Sharma S. Effectiveness of flippits and virtual reality therapy on pain and anxiety among children undergoing painful procedures. Cureus. Aug 2021;13(8):e17134. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Osmanlliu E, Trottier ED, Bailey B, Lagacé M, Certain M, Khadra C, et al. Distraction in the emergency department using virtual reality for intravenous procedures in children to improve comfort (DEVINCI): a pilot pragmatic randomized controlled trial. CJEM. Jan 23, 2021;23(1):94-102. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Özalp Gerçeker G, Ayar D, Özdemir EZ, Bektaş M. Effects of virtual reality on pain, fear and anxiety during blood draw in children aged 5-12 years old: a randomised controlled study. J Clin Nurs. Apr 22, 2020;29(7-8):1151-1161. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Piskorz J, Czub M. Effectiveness of a virtual reality intervention to minimize pediatric stress and pain intensity during venipuncture. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. Jan 20, 2018;23(1):e12201. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Ryu J, Han S, Hwang SM, Lee J, Do S, Kim J, et al. Effects of virtual reality education on procedural pain and anxiety during venipuncture in children: a randomized clinical trial. Front Med (Lausanne). Apr 7, 2022;9:849541. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Semerci R, Akgün Kostak M, Eren T, Avci G. Effects of virtual reality on pain during venous port access in pediatric oncology patients: a randomized controlled study. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2021;38(2):142-151. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Thybo KH, Friis SM, Aagaard G, Jensen CS, Dyekjaer CD, Jørgensen CH, et al. A randomized controlled trial on virtual reality distraction during venous cannulation in young children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. Oct 11, 2022;66(9):1077-1082. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Ustuner Top F, Kuzlu Ayyıldız T. Pain management in children during invasive procedures: a randomized clinical trial. Nurs Forum. Oct 30, 2021;56(4):816-822. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Walther-Larsen S, Petersen T, Friis SM, Aagaard G, Drivenes B, Opstrup P. Immersive virtual reality for pediatric procedural pain: a randomized clinical trial. Hosp Pediatr. Jul 2019;9(7):501-507. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sander Wint S, Eshelman D, Steele J, Guzzetta CE. Effects of distraction using virtual reality glasses during lumbar punctures in adolescents with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2002;29(1):E8-E15. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Wong CL, Choi KC. Effects of an immersive virtual reality intervention on pain and anxiety among pediatric patients undergoing venipuncture: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. Feb 01, 2023;6(2):e230001. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Wong CL, Li CK, Chan CWH, Choi KC, Chen J, Yeung MT, et al. Virtual reality intervention targeting pain and anxiety among pediatric cancer patients undergoing peripheral intravenous cannulation. Cancer Nurs. Jun 4, 2020;44(6):435-442. [CrossRef]
- Yilmaz Yelvar GD, Çırak Y, Dalkılınç M, Parlak Demir Y, Guner Z, Boydak A. Is physiotherapy integrated virtual walking effective on pain, function, and kinesiophobia in patients with non-specific low-back pain? Randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J. Feb 15, 2017;26(2):538-545. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Yıldırım BG, Gerçeker GÖ. The effect of virtual reality and Buzzy on first insertion success, procedure-related fear, anxiety, and pain in Children during Intravenous Insertion in the pediatric emergency unit: a randomized controlled trial. J Emerg Nurs. Jan 2023;49(1):62-74. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Ali RR, Selim AO, Abdel Ghafar MA, Abdelraouf OR, Ali OI. Virtual reality as a pain distractor during physical rehabilitation in pediatric burns. Burns. Mar 2022;48(2):303-308. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Armstrong M, Lun J, Groner JI, Thakkar RK, Fabia R, Noffsinger D, et al. Mobile phone virtual reality game for pediatric home burn dressing pain management: a randomized feasibility clinical trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud. Aug 18, 2022;8(1):186. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Das DA, Grimmer KA, Sparnon AL, McRae SE, Thomas BH. The efficacy of playing a virtual reality game in modulating pain for children with acute burn injuries: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN87413556]. BMC Pediatr. Mar 03, 2005;5(1):1. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Faber AW, Patterson DR, Bremer M. Repeated use of immersive virtual reality therapy to control pain during wound dressing changes in pediatric and adult burn patients. J Burn Care Res. 2013;34(5):563-568. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hoffman HG, Patterson DR, Rodriguez RA, Peña R, Beck W, Meyer WJ. Virtual reality analgesia for children with large severe burn wounds during burn wound debridement. Front Virtual Real. Dec 10, 2020;1:1. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Jeffs D, Dorman D, Brown S, Files A, Graves T, Kirk E, et al. Effect of virtual reality on adolescent pain during burn wound care. Journal of Burn Care & Research. 2014;35(5):395-408. [CrossRef]
- Kaya M, Karaman Özlü Z. The effect of virtual reality on pain, anxiety, and fear during burn dressing in children: a randomized controlled study. Burns. Jun 2023;49(4):788-796. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Kipping B, Rodger S, Miller K, Kimble RM. Virtual reality for acute pain reduction in adolescents undergoing burn wound care: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Burns. Aug 2012;38(5):650-657. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Le May S, Hupin M, Khadra C, Ballard A, Paquin D, Beaudin M, et al. Decreasing pain and fear in medical procedures with a pediatric population (DREAM): a pilot randomized within-subject trial. Pain Manag Nurs. Apr 2021;22(2):191-197. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Bannink Mbazzi F, Nimusiima C, Akellot D, Kawesa E, Abaasa A, Hodges S, et al. Use of virtual reality distraction to reduce child pain and fear during painful medical procedures in children with physical disabilities in Uganda: a feasibility study. Pain Med. Apr 08, 2022;23(4):642-654. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Özsoy F, Ulus B. Comparison of two different methods in reducing pain and fear due to dressing change in 7-10 years old children. JPR. Mar 8, 2022;9(1):66-75. [CrossRef]
- Schmitt YS, Hoffman HG, Blough DK, Patterson DR, Jensen MP, Soltani M, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of immersive virtual reality analgesia, during physical therapy for pediatric burns. Burns. Feb 2011;37(1):61-68. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- van Twillert B, Bremer M, Faber AW. Computer-generated virtual reality to control pain and anxiety in pediatric and adult burn patients during wound dressing changes. Journal of Burn Care & Research. 2007;28(5):694-702. [CrossRef]
- Wang Q, Xu S, Guo B, Xu Y, Lu W. Virtual reality as an adjunctive non-pharmacological therapy to reduce pain in school-aged children with burn wounds. J Burn Care Res. Jul 05, 2023;44(4):832-836. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Xiang H, Shen J, Wheeler KK, Patterson J, Lever K, Armstrong M, et al. Efficacy of smartphone active and passive virtual reality distraction vs standard care on burn pain among pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. Jun 01, 2021;4(6):e2112082. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Addab S, Hamdy R, Le May S, Thorstad K, Tsimicalis A. The use of virtual reality during medical procedures in a pediatric orthopedic setting: a mixed-methods pilot feasibility study. Paediatr Neonatal Pain. Sep 14, 2024;6(3):45-59. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Alshatrat SM, Sabarini JM, Hammouri HM, Al-Bakri IA, Al-Omari WM. Effect of immersive virtual reality on pain in different dental procedures in children: a pilot study. Int J Paediatr Dent. Mar 05, 2022;32(2):264-272. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Poureslami H, Asl Aminabadi N, Sighari Deljavan A, Erfanparast L, Sohrabi A, Jamali Z, et al. Does timing of eruption in first primary tooth correlate with that of first permanent tooth? A 9-years cohort study. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. Jun 10, 2015;9(2):79-85. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Bernaerts S, Bonroy B, Daems J, Sels R, Struyf D, Gies I, et al. Virtual reality for distraction and relaxation in a pediatric hospital setting: an interventional study with a mixed-methods design. Front Digit Health. May 31, 2022;4:866119. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Buyuk ET, Odabasoglu E, Uzsen H, Koyun M. The effect of virtual reality on children's anxiety, fear, and pain levels before circumcision. J Pediatr Urol. Aug 2021;17(4):567.e1-567.e8. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Clerc PGB, Arneja JS, Zwimpfer CM, Behboudi A, Goldman RD. A randomized controlled trial of virtual reality in awake minor pediatric plastic surgery procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg. Aug 01, 2021;148(2):400-408. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Du Q, Ma X, Wang S, Zhou S, Luo C, Tian K, et al. A digital intervention using virtual reality helmets to reduce dental anxiety of children under local anesthesia and primary teeth extraction: a randomized clinical trial. Brain Behav. Jun 2022;12(6):e2600. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Eijlers R, Dierckx B, Staals LM, Berghmans JM, van der Schroeff MP, Strabbing EM, et al. Virtual reality exposure before elective day care surgery to reduce anxiety and pain in children: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. Oct 2019;36(10):728-737. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Goldman RD, Behboudi A. Pilot randomized controlled trial of virtual reality vs. standard-of-care during pediatric laceration repair. J Child Adolesc Trauma. Jun 26, 2021;14(2):295-298. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Goudman L, Jansen J, De Smedt A, Billot M, Roulaud M, Rigoard P, et al. Virtual reality during intrathecal pump refills in children: a case series. J Clin Med. Oct 05, 2022;11(19):5877. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Kucher N, Larson JM, Fischer G, Mertaugh M, Peterson L, Gershan LA. 3-dimensional nature-based therapeutics in pediatric patients with total pancreatectomy and islet auto-transplant. Complement Ther Med. Jan 2020;48:102249. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Kumari S, Bahuguna R, Garg N, Yeluri R. Immersive and non-immersive virtual reality distraction on pain perception to intraoral injections. J Clin Pediatr Dent. Dec 01, 2021;45(6):389-394. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Liu KY, Ninan SJ, Laitman BM, Goldrich DY, Iloreta AM, Londino AV. Virtual reality as distraction analgesia and anxiolysis for pediatric otolaryngology procedures. Laryngoscope. May 05, 2021;131(5):E1714-E1721. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Luo W, Chen C, Zhou W, Cao A, Zhu W, Zhou Y, et al. Biophilic virtual reality on children's anxiety and pain during circumcision: a randomized controlled study. J Pediatr Urol. Apr 2023;19(2):201-210. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Niharika P, Reddy NV, Srujana P, Srikanth K, Daneswari V, Geetha KS. Effects of distraction using virtual reality technology on pain perception and anxiety levels in children during pulp therapy of primary molars. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2018;36(4):364-369. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Olbrecht VA, O'Conor KT, Williams SE, Boehmer CO, Marchant GW, Glynn SM, et al. Guided relaxation-based virtual reality for acute postoperative pain and anxiety in a pediatric population: pilot observational study. J Med Internet Res. Jul 12, 2021;23(7):e26328. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Olbrecht VA, O'Conor KT, Williams SE, Boehmer CO, Marchant GW, Glynn SM, et al. Transient reductions in postoperative pain and anxiety with the use of virtual reality in children. Pain Med. Nov 26, 2021;22(11):2426-2435. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Ran L, Zhao N, Fan L, Zhou P, Zhang C, Yu C. Application of virtual reality on non-drug behavioral management of short-term dental procedure in children. Trials. Aug 23, 2021;22(1):562. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Rao DG, Havale R, Nagaraj M, Karobari NM, Latha AM, Tharay N, et al. Assessment of efficacy of virtual reality distraction in reducing pain perception and anxiety in children aged 6-10 years: a behavioral interventional study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2019;12(6):510-513. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Richey AE, Hastings KG, Karius A, Segovia NA, Caruso TJ, Frick S, et al. Virtual reality reduces fear and anxiety during pediatric orthopaedic cast room procedures: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Orthop. 2022;42(10):600-607. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sharma Y, Bhatia HP, Sood S, Sharma N, Singh A. Effectiveness of virtual reality glasses digital screens and verbal command as a method to distract young patients during administration of local anesthesia. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021;14(Suppl 2):S143-S147. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Shetty V, Suresh LR, Hegde AM. Effect of virtual reality distraction on pain and anxiety during dental treatment in 5 to 8 year old children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2019;43(2):97-102. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Specht BJ, Buse CR, Phelps JR, Phillips MR, Chiavacci SD, Harrell LE, et al. Virtual reality after surgery-a method to decrease pain after surgery in pediatric patients. Am Surg. Apr 2023;89(4):596-602. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Taylor JS, Chandler JM, Menendez M, Diyaolu M, Austin JR, Gibson ML, et al. Small surgeries, big smiles: using virtual reality to reduce the need for sedation or general anesthesia during minor surgical procedures. Pediatr Surg Int. Oct 16, 2021;37(10):1437-1445. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Zaidman L, Lusky G, Shmueli A, Halperson E, Moskovitz M, Ram D, et al. Distraction with virtual reality goggles in paediatric dental treatment: a randomised controlled trial. Int Dent J. Feb 2023;73(1):108-113. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Butt M, Kabariti S, Likourezos A, Drapkin J, Hossain R, Brazg J, et al. Take-Pause: efficacy of mindfulness-based virtual reality as an intervention in the pediatric emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. Mar 09, 2022;29(3):270-277. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Diaz-Hennessey S, O'Shea ER, King K. Virtual reality: augmenting the acute pain experience in children. Pediatric Nursing. 2019;45(3):122-127. [FREE Full text]
- Phelan I, Furness PJ, Dunn HD, Carrion-Plaza A, Matsangidou M, Dimitri P, et al. Immersive virtual reality in children with upper limb injuries: findings from a feasibility study. PRM. Sep 28, 2021;14(3):401-414. [CrossRef]
- Griffin A, Wilson L, Feinstein AB, Bortz A, Heirich MS, Gilkerson R, et al. Virtual reality in pain rehabilitation for youth with chronic pain: pilot feasibility study. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. Nov 23, 2020;7(2):e22620. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hua Y, Qiu R, Yao W, Zhang Q, Chen X. The effect of virtual reality distraction on pain relief during dressing changes in children with chronic wounds on lower limbs. Pain Manag Nurs. Oct 2015;16(5):685-691. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Riera L, Verger S, Montoya PJ, Perales FJ. Advances in the cognitive management of chronic pain in children through the use of virtual reality combined with binaural beats: a pilot study. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction. Dec 31, 2022;2022:1-10. [CrossRef]
- Sharifpour S, Manshaee GR, Sajjadian I. Effects of virtual reality therapy on perceived pain intensity, anxiety, catastrophising and self‐efficacy among adolescents with cancer. Couns and Psychother Res. Mar 28, 2020;21(1):218-226. [CrossRef]
- Tennant M, Youssef GJ, McGillivray J, Clark T, McMillan L, McCarthy MC. Exploring the use of immersive virtual reality to enhance psychological well-being in pediatric oncology: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Eur J Oncol Nurs. Oct 2020;48:101804. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Wren AA, Neiman N, Caruso TJ, Rodriguez S, Taylor K, Madill M, et al. Mindfulness-based virtual reality intervention for children and young adults with inflammatory bowel disease: a pilot feasibility and acceptability study. Children (Basel). May 05, 2021;8(5):368. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Trost Z, France C, Anam M, Shum C. Virtual reality approaches to pain: toward a state of the science. Pain. Feb 01, 2021;162(2):325-331. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Virtual Reality Interventions in Pediatric Acute and Chronic Pain. SickKids. URL: https://lab.research.sickkids.ca/iouch/eppimapper-demo/ [accessed 2025-04-04]
- Darnall BD, Krishnamurthy P, Tsuei J, Minor JD. Self-administered skills-based virtual reality intervention for chronic pain: randomized controlled pilot study. JMIR Form Res. Jul 07, 2020;4(7):e17293. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Eccleston C, Fisher E, Liikkanen S, Sarapohja T, Stenfors C, Jääskeläinen SK, et al. A prospective, double-blind, pilot, randomized, controlled trial of an "embodied" virtual reality intervention for adults with low back pain. Pain. Sep 01, 2022;163(9):1700-1715. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L. A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci. May 17, 2016;11(1):72. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Dekker C, van Haastregt JCM, Verbunt JAMCF, de Jong JR, van Meulenbroek T, Pernot HFM, et al. Pain-related fear in adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain: process evaluation of an interdisciplinary graded exposure program. BMC Health Serv Res. Mar 14, 2020;20(1):213. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Simons LE, Harrison LE, Boothroyd DB, Parvathinathan G, Van Orden AR, O'Brien SF, et al. A randomized controlled trial of graded exposure treatment (GET living) for adolescents with chronic pain. Pain. Jan 01, 2024;165(1):177-191. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Simons LE, Harrison LE, O'Brien SF, Heirich MS, Loecher N, Boothroyd DB, et al. Graded exposure treatment for adolescents with chronic pain (GET Living): protocol for a randomized controlled trial enhanced with single case experimental design. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. Dec 2019;16:100448. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Forgeron PA, King S, Stinson JN, McGrath PJ, MacDonald AJ, Chambers CT. Social functioning and peer relationships in children and adolescents with chronic pain: a systematic review. Pain Res Manag. Jan 2010;15(1):27-41. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Berkanish P, Pan S, Viola A, Rademaker Q, Devine KA. Technology-based peer support interventions for adolescents with chronic illness: a systematic review. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. Dec 11, 2022;29(4):911-942. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Kavanagh E, Chur-Hansen A, Ferencz N. A critical analysis of online social support for young people experiencing chronic pain. Australian Journal of Psychology. May 25, 2023;75(1):1. [CrossRef]
- Linkiewich D, Dib KC, Forgeron PA, Dick BD, McMurtry CM. Roadmap to the 'Chronic Pain GPS for Adolescents' intervention: content and design considerations for a group peer support intervention. Clin J Pain. May 01, 2024;40(5):288-298. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Tolley JA, Michel MA, Williams AE, Renschler JS. Peer support in the treatment of chronic pain in adolescents: a review of the literature and available resources. Children (Basel). Sep 07, 2020;7(9):129. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Groenewald CB, Tham SW, Palermo TM. Impaired school functioning in children with chronic pain: a national perspective. Clin J Pain. Sep 2020;36(9):693-699. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Logan DE, Simons LE, Stein MJ, Chastain L. School impairment in adolescents with chronic pain. J Pain. May 2008;9(5):407-416. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Logan DE, Khanna K, Randall E, O'Donnell S, Reks T, McLennan L. Centering patient and clinician voices in developing tools to address pain related school impairment: a phase I study of a virtual reality school simulation for children and adolescents with chronic pain. Children (Basel). Oct 01, 2023;10(10):1644. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Abbreviations
| AR: augmented reality |
| MINORS: Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies |
| PICO: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome |
| RCT: randomized controlled trial |
| RoB-2: Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool |
| VR: virtual reality |
| XR: extended reality |
Edited by S Badawy; submitted 01.07.24; peer-reviewed by BC Reynolds, I Kathner; comments to author 05.12.24; revised version received 16.01.25; accepted 28.02.25; published 07.04.25.
Copyright©Courtney W Hess, Brittany N Rosenbloom, Giulia Mesaroli, Cristal Lopez, Nhat Ngo, Estreya Cohen, Carley Ouellette, Jeffrey I Gold, Deirdre Logan, Laura E Simons, Jennifer N Stinson. Originally published in JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting (https://pediatrics.jmir.org), 07.04.2025.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://pediatrics.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.