Back

Acceptability of a virtual reality tool for early rehabilitation in intensive care units

Celant Le Manac'h, F.; Saint-Aubert, J.; Launey, Y.; Painvin, B.; Lecuyer, A.; Cogne, M.

2025-07-03 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.1101/2025.07.03.25330816 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionVirtual Reality (VR) is playing an increasingly important role in the medical field environment, whether for pain management or healthcare professionals training. The use of a VR device during a stay in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) could contribute to early rehabilitations management. Evaluation of the acceptability of such VR device on patients and healthcare professionals in these departments is the first step before considering integrating it, in order to ascertain the intention to use this device, but also to assess the possible obstacles to its use. MethodWe performed an acceptability study including patients and healthcare professionals from the ICUs of the University Hospital of Rennes, France. They answered a questionnaire based on the UTAUT 2 model, after a brief presentation of the VR device created to promote mental imagery early in ICU. Main judgment criterion was evaluating the acceptability via intention-to-use of this VR tool. Secondary objectives were to identify items influencing intention to use a VR tool in the healthcare professionals and patient populations. ResultsSixty-eight healthcare professionals and fifty patients completed the questionnaire. We found a positive evaluation and a favorable intention to use the device in both populations. The main factors influencing intention to use were "perception of use" and "hedonic motivation" in both populations. Healthcare professionals attached importance to social influence, while patients prioritized "perceived ease of use". DiscussionOur results are in line with the literature on the a priori acceptability and intention to use virtual reality. However, this is the first study of virtual reality for early rehabilitation in ICU.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.