In the forensic field, most studies employing virtual reality (VR) interventionshave focused on offenders. The validity and safety of VR applications for victimsof crime are still unclear. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review onVR interventions for crime victims was performed to assess the efficacy, accept-ability by patients, and cost-effectiveness of these interventions compared toin-person care. We identified 34 potentially eligible studies from 188 recordsobtained from database searches (Medline/Pubmed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Webof Science, and Scopus); four additional articles were identified via alternativesources. In total, nine articles were included for the qualitative synthesis. Patientsatisfaction with VR interventions was found to be equivalent to face-to-faceinterventions. Both VR exposure and control groups found relief from posttrau-matic symptoms, with differences either statistically insignificant or in favor ofVR. Despite the increased costs linked to the technology required, VR appearsto be a promising alternative to in vivo exposure, but further research is needed.Limitations of the review include the varied experimental protocols, which didnot allow us to conducta quantitative analysis and comparison of findingsacrossdifferent studies, and the generally poor quality of the studies included. Furtherresearch, preferably in larger groups, is needed to shed more light on the effectiveness of VR interventions for traumatized victims of crime.
Virtual reality interventions for victims of crime: A systematic review
Mandarelli, Gabriele;
2022-01-01
Abstract
In the forensic field, most studies employing virtual reality (VR) interventionshave focused on offenders. The validity and safety of VR applications for victimsof crime are still unclear. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review onVR interventions for crime victims was performed to assess the efficacy, accept-ability by patients, and cost-effectiveness of these interventions compared toin-person care. We identified 34 potentially eligible studies from 188 recordsobtained from database searches (Medline/Pubmed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Webof Science, and Scopus); four additional articles were identified via alternativesources. In total, nine articles were included for the qualitative synthesis. Patientsatisfaction with VR interventions was found to be equivalent to face-to-faceinterventions. Both VR exposure and control groups found relief from posttrau-matic symptoms, with differences either statistically insignificant or in favor ofVR. Despite the increased costs linked to the technology required, VR appearsto be a promising alternative to in vivo exposure, but further research is needed.Limitations of the review include the varied experimental protocols, which didnot allow us to conducta quantitative analysis and comparison of findingsacrossdifferent studies, and the generally poor quality of the studies included. Furtherresearch, preferably in larger groups, is needed to shed more light on the effectiveness of VR interventions for traumatized victims of crime.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
