This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Aim To assess the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual reality-based nature intervention in long-term care facilities and explore psychosocial effects ahead of a future randomised controlled trial. Design Two-centre feasibility study in a mixed-methods design, focusing on qualitative evaluation. Methods Ten residents and ten nursing staff members from two long-term care facilities complete twelve 15-minute virtual reality sessions using a 360° forest video developed by the study team. Over four weeks, residents conduct three sessions each week. Six residents receive support by nursing staff once weekly. The primary outcome feasibility will be qualitatively assessed through semi-structured interviews and qualitative content analysis. Secondary outcomes, including sleep quality, anxiety, depressive symptoms, wellbeing, loneliness and trust in nursing staff, will be analysed using quantitative descriptive analysis. Conclusion The study will provide insights into the feasibility of implementing virtual reality-based nature interventions in long-term care, informing a full-scale effectiveness trial. Impact The feasibility study will provide information about the barriers and facilitators of the VR-based nature intervention for long-term care facility residents and nursing staff. This information will offer valuable insights into the feasibility of VR interventions in long-term care settings for (workplace) health promotion. Information about the potential effectiveness of the Nature-Boost VR intervention will offers useful perspectives for adapting and improving similar interventions. Reporting method This protocol (Version 1.0) complies with the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 and TIDieR checklist. Patient and public involvement Residents and nursing staff contribute feedback to refine the intervention. Clinical Trial Registration https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00037568/details , identifier DRKS00037568.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sieverding et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: