| Title |
Recent Progress in Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Phobias: A Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Psychiatry Reports, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11920-017-0788-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cristina Botella, Javier Fernández-Álvarez, Verónica Guillén, Azucena García-Palacios, Rosa Baños |
| Abstract |
This review is designed to systematically examine the available evidence about virtual reality exposure therapy's (VRET) efficacy for phobias, critically describe some of the most important challenges in the field and discuss possible directions. Evidence reveals that virtual reality (VR) is an effective treatment for phobias and useful for studying specific issues, such as pharmacological compounds and behavioral manipulations, that can enhance treatment outcomes. In addition, some variables, such as sense of presence in virtual environments, have a significant influence on outcomes, but further research is needed to better understand their role in therapeutic outcomes. We conclude that VR is a useful tool to improve exposure therapy and it can be a good option to analyze the processes and mechanisms involved in exposure therapy and the ways this strategy can be enhanced. In the coming years, there will be a significant expansion of VR in routine practice in clinical contexts. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Japan | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 602 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 602 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 83 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 69 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 67 | 11% |
| Researcher | 56 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 35 | 6% |
| Other | 90 | 15% |
| Unknown | 202 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 159 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 47 | 8% |
| Engineering | 22 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 3% |
| Other | 85 | 14% |
| Unknown | 220 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 105. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2023.
All research outputs
#410,043
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from Current Psychiatry Reports
#61
of 1,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,356
of 328,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Psychiatry Reports
#3
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.