Scoping review maps risks and harms of XR technologies, suggesting mitigation strategies and highlighting knowledge gaps.
<ns3:p>This article uses a scoping review method to extensively map risks and harms related to the design, development and application of XR technologies (VR, MR, AR, virtual environments, and metaverses). Through the application of qualitative content analysis, thematic categories emerged which were developed into a novel typology of risks comprising of six main themes and 19 sub-themes: 1) health and wellbeing (cognitive, psycho-emotional, socio-relational and physical), 2) autonomy (privacy, self-sovereignty, surveillance, authenticity), 3) epistemic and scientific (epistemic uncertainty, scientific uncertainty, algorithmic imperfection, manipulation), 4) normative (norm violations, rights violations), 5) structural (socio-political, economic/financial, legal), and 6) technical safety and security (security, dual use). Further considerations identified were risks pertaining to special populations (vulnerable groups), unknown risks and long-term use effects. A subsidiary aim was to map risk mitigations. Other key findings, such as geographical distribution of sources, and use cases, among others, are featured, lending to a robust discussion on the state of XR risks, potential motivators for development of XR harm mitigation-strategies, and key knowledge gaps.</ns3:p>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Voinov et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: