Using the Theoretical Domains Framework to Inform the Implementation of Therapeutic Virtual Reality into Mental Healthcare.

Evidence supporting the efficacy of therapeutic virtual reality (VR) for mental health conditions is rapidly growing. However, little is known about how best to implement VR, or the challenges perceived by treatment providers. This study aimed to (1) synthesis perspectives of staff working in private mental healthcare and (2) use the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to identify mechanisms of change targets and intervention functions to facilitate its clinical implementation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians (n = 14) and service managers (n = 5) working in a major private mental health hospital in Victoria, Australia. Transcripts were coded using framework analysis to identify relevant TDF domains. Specific belief statements were generated and coded as a barrier and/or facilitator and thematically organised within domains. Domains were ranked for importance based on frequency, elaboration, and evidence of conflicting beliefs. Using the BCW, domains were mapped to their respective COM-B components and indicated intervention functions. A total of 11 TDF domains were identified as relevant to early-stage implementation of therapeutic VR. Three domains were judged as highly important (beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; knowledge), while seven domains were judged as moderately important (social/professional role and identity; emotions; skills; memory, attention, and decision processes; intentions; beliefs about capabilities; social influences). Based on current data, we propose a theory-informed roadmap to promote VR uptake in mental healthcare services. A priority for intervention development should be addressing knowledge gaps and attitudinal barriers (e.g., safety concerns) with education and training.

Are Australian Mental Health Services Ready for Therapeutic Virtual Reality? An Investigation of Knowledge, Attitudes, Implementation Barriers and Enablers.

Therapeutic virtual reality (VR) has the potential to address the challenges of equitable delivery of evidence-based psychological treatment. However, little is known about therapeutic VR regarding the perspectives and needs of real-world service providers. This exploratory study aimed to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of therapeutic VR among clinicians, managers, and service staff working in mental healthcare and explore potential implementation barriers and enablers. Eighty-one staff from a network of private psychiatric hospitals in Victoria, Australia (aged M + SD: 41.88 + 12.01 years, 71.6% female; 64% clinical staff) completed an online survey, which included the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Appropriateness of Intervention Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM). While 91% of participants had heard about VR technology, only 40% of participants had heard of therapeutic VR being used in mental healthcare, and none had used therapeutic VR in a clinical setting. Most participants perceived VR to be acceptable (84%), appropriate (69%), and feasible (59%) to implement within their role or service and envisioned a range of possible applications. However, participants expressed concerns regarding safety, efficacy, and logistical challenges across clinical settings. Findings suggest a strong interest for therapeutic VR among Australian mental health providers working in the private system. However, dissemination efforts should focus on addressing identified barriers to ensure mental health providers are adequately informed and empowered to make implementation decisions.

Corrigendum: Implementation of Therapeutic Virtual Reality Into Psychiatric Care: Clinicians' and Service Managers' Perspectives.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.791123.].

Implementation of Therapeutic Virtual Reality Into Psychiatric Care: Clinicians' and Service Managers' Perspectives.

Objectives: Virtual reality (VR) has emerged as a highly promising tool for assessing and treating a range of mental illnesses. However, little is known about the perspectives of key stakeholders in mental healthcare, whose support will be critical for its successful implementation into routine clinical practise. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of staff working in the private mental health sector around the use of therapeutic VR, including potential implementation barriers and facilitators. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with cross-disciplinary clinicians (n = 14) and service managers (n = 5), aged 28-70 years working in a major private mental health hospital in Victoria, Australia. Transcripts were analysed using general inductive coding to allow themes to naturally emerge. Results: Three major themes were identified: clinical factors (four subthemes), organisational factors (five subthemes), and professional factors (three subthemes). The themes encompassed enabling factors and potential barriers that need to be addressed for successful implementation of VR. Clinical factors highlighted the influence of knowledge or perceptions about appropriate clinical applications, therapeutic efficacy, safety and ethical concerns, and patient engagement. Organisational factors emphasised the importance of service contexts, including having a strong business case, stakeholder planning, recruitment of local opinion leaders to champion change, and an understanding of resourcing challenges. Professional factors highlighted the need for education and training for staff, and the influence of staff attitudes towards technology and perceived usability of VR. Conclusions: In addition to enabling factors, potential implementation barriers of therapeutic VR were identified, including resourcing constraints, safety and ethical concerns, negative staff attitudes towards technology and VR system limitations. Future dissemination should focus on addressing knowledge and skills gaps and attitudinal barriers through development of clinical guidelines, training programs, and implementation resources (e.g., adoption decision tools, consultation opportunities).