Randomized trial shows VR improves menstrual pain and self-efficacy in young women, suggesting new intervention avenues.
Background: Menstrual disorders are among the most common health problems faced by young women, yet effective interventions remain limited. Recent evidence has linked endocrine disruptors (EDs) to dysmenorrhea and premenstrual syndrome (PMS), suggesting that reducing exposure may alleviate symptoms. Purpose: The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of an immersive virtual reality (VR) intervention designed to promote protective behaviors against EDs and to evaluate its longitudinal impact on menstrual pain and PMS among young adult women. Methods: A nonequivalent comparison group pretest and repeated posttest experimental design was applied, using a convenience sample of 30 participants. Guided by the Information–Motivation–Behavioral skills model, the immersive VR intervention incorporated educational content, motivational cues, and avatar-based play experiences to enhance knowledge, perceived benefits, and self-efficacy. The comparison group received a small-group education session. Data were collected at baseline and at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks post-baseline. Results: Repeated-measures revealed significant interaction effects between group and time for menstrual pain (F = 2.67, p = 0.039), perceived benefits of protection from ED exposure (F = 4.41, p = 0.003), self-efficacy in reducing ED exposure (F = 5.42, p = 0.001), and protective behaviors against EDs (F = 4.68, p = 0.002). However, the overall group-by-time interaction effect for PMS was not statistically significant (F = 2.05, p = 0.097). Conclusion/Implication for Practice: Immersive VR as part of digital interventions has the potential to transform patient education by enhancing engagement while promoting protective health behaviors and improving associated health outcomes. Future research should explore strategies to improve long-term behavioral adherence and examine whether booster sessions can help sustain the effects of the intervention over time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: