Randomized trial evaluates virtual reality stabilization tool for health care workers with PTSD symptoms, suggesting improved mental health outcomes.
Health care workers (HCWs) are particularly vulnerable to mental health challenges during public health crises such as pandemics. Subthreshold post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is prevalent among frontline HCWs and may progress to full-blown PTSD without timely intervention. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of a newly developed virtual reality (VR)-based stabilization (VRS) program for frontline HCWs with above-subthreshold PTSD. A randomized controlled trial compared VRS with a mobile application-based stabilization (MAS) program, both using identical stabilization techniques. The trial was conducted at a COVID-19-designated hospital in South Korea. Thirty-six HCWs with above-subthreshold PTSD completed a 5-week stabilization program, with 18 participants in the VRS group and 18 in the MAS group. Primary outcomes were post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS), assessed via self-report (PTSD Checklist-5) and clinician rating (Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5). Secondary outcomes included depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory-II, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17), anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Y), and quality of life (the World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale-Abbreviated Version). Concentration, immersion, task load, and cybersickness were also measured. Both interventions demonstrated satisfactory safety and feasibility. Immersion was significantly higher with VRS. Significant pre-post improvements in PTSS, self-reported depression, and anxiety were observed in both groups. However, the VRS group showed greater improvements in quality of life. These results suggest the potential of immersive VR-based stabilization interventions as a useful tool for protecting the mental health of vulnerable populations, including HCWs, in public health emergencies during and beyond pandemics, when the traditional face-to-face delivery of intervention is limited.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: