Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 9, 2026
Author Spotlight: Insights into Remotely Supervised Neuromodulation Procedure for Phantom Limb Pain
Published on: March 1, 2024
At-Home Virtual Reality Intervention for Patients With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Single-Case Experimental Design
Syl Slatman1,2, Lieke Heesink3, Reinoud Achterkamp4
1Biomedical Signals and Systems Group, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, Enschede, 7522NB, Netherlands.
Background:
Virtual reality (VR) could possibly alleviate complaints related to chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP); however, little is known about how it affects pain-related variables on an individual level and how patients experience this intervention.
Objective:
This study aimed to gain detailed insight into the influence of an at-home VR intervention for pain education and management on pain-related variables, and to explore its feasibility and general experience.
Methods:
The study applied a single-case experimental design in which an at-home VR intervention was used for 4 weeks by patients with CMP who were on a waiting list for regular pain treatment. Outcome measures included pain-related variables, functioning, and objectively measured outcomes (ie, stress, sleep, and steps). Outcomes were analyzed using data visualization (based on line plots) and statistical methods (ie, Tau-U and reliable change index) on an individual and group level. In addition, a focus group was conducted to assess feasibility and general experience to substantiate findings from the single-case experimental design study. This focus group was analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.
Results:
A total of 7 participants (female: n=6, 86%) with a median age of 45 (range 31-61) years participated in this study. A dataset with 42 measurement moments was collected with a median of 280 (range 241-315) data points per participant. No statistically significant or clinically relevant differences between the intervention and no-intervention phases were found. Results of the visual analysis of the diary data showed that patients responded differently to the intervention. Results of the focus group with 3 participants showed that the VR intervention was perceived as a feasible and valued additional intervention.
Conclusions:
Although patients expressed a positive perspective on this VR intervention, it did not seem to influence pain-related outcomes. Individual patients responded differently to the intervention, which implies that this intervention might not be suitable for all patients. Future studies should examine which CMP patients VR is effective for and explore its working mechanisms. In addition, future larger trials should be conducted to complement this study's findings on the effectiveness of this intervention for patients with CMP and whether VR prevents deterioration on the waiting list compared with a control group.
