ReviewVirtual reality exposure therapy in flight anxiety: A quantitative meta-analysis
Introduction
Flight anxiety affects approximately 10–40% of the general population (Dean and Whitaker, 1982, Van Gerwen and Diekstra, 2000). Among people who have anxiety to fly, about 20% use sedatives or alcohol to cope with anxiety (Howard et al., 1983, Wilhelm and Roth, 1997). Flight anxiety and the fear-related avoidance draw serious personal and financial negative consequences, such as professional repercussions, stigmatization (Baños et al., 2002), and significant financial reduction in airline revenue (i.e., 9% for the US airline industry in 1982, Dean & Whitaker, 1982). Although classical exposure techniques for flight anxiety, ‘in vivo’ and ‘in imago’ exposures, are widely used and effective treatments (Deacon and Abramowitz, 2004, Emmelkamp et al., 1985, Hodges and Rothbaum, 2000), they involve certain limitations: low control of the situation, confidentiality issues, financial and time costs, development of aversion or are dependent on the patient's ability to recreate the phobic stimulus (Emmelkamp, 2005, Rothbaum et al., 2000).
Efforts to develop the effectiveness, benefits, and access to evidence-based psychotherapies have led to a new method of delivering exposure technique, specifically, the use of virtual reality (VR; Da Costa, Sardinha & Nardi, 2008). VR is a new delivery tool for exposure techniques, using a computer-generated virtual environment, enabling systematic exposure to anxiogenic stimuli in a relevant context (Parsons & Rizzo, 2008). This new facility has a number of advantages compared to ‘in vivo’ and ‘in imago’ exposure techniques: is safer, can be repeated as often as needed, the therapist has better control over the content and exposure rhythm, exposure can be individualized, and it is cost effective for patients (Emmelkamp, 2005, Krijn et al., 2007).
Recent qualitative systematic reviews (Da Costa et al., 2008, Price et al., 2008) reporting case studies and controlled trials emphasize that virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET), with or without cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), is an efficient and effective treatment for flight anxiety, being comparable or superior to in vivo exposure, progressive muscle relaxation, cognitive therapy, bibliotherapy, or supportive group therapy.
Further, a recent meta-analysis (Opriş et al., 2012), comparing VRET with control conditions and classical evidence-based interventions in anxiety disorders, showed that VRET is efficient in reducing flight anxiety, compared to control conditions at post-treatment (two studies, D = 0.53, VAR D = 0.007). The same meta-analysis (Opriş et al., 2012) revealed a similar efficacy on the flight anxiety primary outcome measures (five studies, D = 0.40, VAR D = 0.21) and real-life impact outcomes (three studies, D = −.22, VAR D = 0.02) at post-treatment, between VRET and classical evidence-based interventions. Regarding the long-term efficacy, in case of fear of flying, VRET was superior to classical evidence-based interventions on primary and behavioral outcomes (three studies, D = 0.33, VAR D = 0.08).
Another meta-analysis (Parsons & Rizzo, 2008) which evaluated the magnitude of VRET related changes in six anxiety domains, revealed that VRET had statistically large effects on flight anxiety (four studies, D = 1.59, VAR D = 0.05).
Although the results of previous systematic reviews and meta-analysis (Da Costa et al., 2008, Opriş et al., 2012, Parsons and Rizzo, 2008, Price et al., 2008) gave us an overview of the efficacy of VRET in flight anxiety, these reviews are not updated, complex analyses were not performed and analyses made on this disorder are secondary objectives. Considering that research in the field of flight anxiety is in development, there is a need to outline a research line based on quantitative syntheses, to estimate a population effect size on independent studies. Until now, there has been no meta-analysis which assumed as a primary objective the comparison between the effectiveness of VRET and control conditions or classical evidence-based interventions in flight anxiety. Considering these needs and analyzing current methodological problems, the present meta-analysis tried to provide answers to the following questions: 1) What is the overall efficacy of VRET in flight anxiety?; 2) What is the efficacy of VRET compared to control conditions?; 3) What is the efficacy of VRET compared to classical evidence-based interventions, globally?; 4) What is the efficacy of VRET compared to exposure based interventions (i.e. classical interventions that include ‘in vivo’ or ‘in imago’ exposure techniques). Another objective of the present meta-analysis was to investigate potential moderators of the effectiveness of VRET.
Moderator variables were selected on the basis of prior research. Previous studies identified these variables as potential moderators of interventions efficacy/effectiveness in anxiety disorders. We are briefly discussing these moderators below.
First, we took into consideration the number of participants, participant's mean age and percentage of female participants as variables that can influence the effects of VRET. We anticipate that the effects of VRET will be larger in smaller and younger samples (Holzinger et al., 2011, Neguţ et al., 2016). Second, we considered that gender may influence the effect due to a greater number of women than men enrolled in studies (Krijn, Emmelkamp, Olafsson, & Biemond, 2004). Also, we considered the number of exposure sessions as a possible moderating variable due to large variations of exposure sessions number (Krijn et al., 2004) and the fact that this variable appears to influence the effect of treatments on anxiety disorders (Craske et al., 2008).
Further, the quality of randomized trials is an important variable that can impact on outcomes of interest (Kleijnen & Van Groenendaal, 2000). We assumed that low quality of randomized trials will lead to an increase in the effect size of the compared conditions. To assess the quality of randomized trials included in the present meta-analysis we used The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (Higgins et al., 2011).
We analyzed the influence of outcome types on the overall effect size of VRET. Based on previous research on anxiety disorders we expected that VRET will have a higher efficiency on specific distress and behavioral level (Opriş et al., 2012). Moreover, there is a major difference between follow-up assessments in studies of flight anxiety. Therefore, we took into consideration the follow-up length variable to analyze its effects on results change. Moderation analyses with categorical variables were conducted by assuming independence of studies based on the moderators' categories.
Section snippets
Literature search
The systematic literature search has been conducted on the PsychInfo, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and ScienceDirect databases, up to 30th of September 2015, using the following terms: “virtual reality” or “VR” in combination with “fear of flying” or “flight anxiety” or “flight phobia” or “flying anxiety” or “flying phobia” or “aviophobia” or “flight phobic” or “avoidance of flying” or “fearful flyers”. Also, in order to detect other studies, the references of recent studies and reviews
The overall efficiency of VRET
There were 16 effect sizes regarding the effectiveness of VRET at post-test and 15 at follow-up (see Table 2). The overall effect size of Hedge's g = 0.592 (95% CI [.327–.858], p = 0.00), revealed a medium and statistically significant effect size of VRET at post-test, with evidence of heterogeneity within results (Q(15) = 32.257, p = 0.00, I2 = 53.49).
Results showed a medium statistically significant effect size of VRET at follow-up (g = 0.588, 95% CI [.216–.960], p = 0.00). There was evidence
Discussion & conclusions
The present meta-analysis aimed at investigating the efficacy of VRET interventions for flight anxiety compared to control conditions and classical evidence-based interventions, at post-test and follow-up. We conducted a quantitative review of 11 randomized studies, we examined potential moderators of the efficacy of interventions and we investigated the presence of publication bias. Overall, findings from this meta-analysis provide arguments for the use of VRET for treating flight anxiety.
Limitations and future directions
Conclusions presented in this meta-analysis have several limitations. First, there were a limited number of studies included in the analyses which could lead to a weaker statistical power, and limited the conclusions that can be draw from these comparisons. This limit can be observed also from the moderation analysis performed as there were no sufficient studies to test for all the potential moderators. Therefore, further researches should analyze the effectiveness of VRET in flight anxiety,
Disclosure statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References1 (40)
- et al.
Optimizing inhibitory learning during exposure therapy
Behaviour Research and Therapy
(2008) - et al.
The external validity of analogue outcome research: Evaluation of cognitive and behavioral interventions
Behaviour Research and Therapy
(1985) - et al.
The nature and treatment of fear of flying: A controlled investigation
Behavior Therapy
(1983) - et al.
Measuring the quality of publications: New methodology and case study
Information Processing & Management
(2000) - et al.
Virtual reality exposure therapy of anxiety disorders: A review
Clinical Psychology Review
(2004) - et al.
Repeated exposure of flight phobics to flights in virtual reality
Behaviour Research and Therapy
(2001) - et al.
Affective outcomes of virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety and specific phobias: A meta-analysis
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
(2008) - et al.
Optimal attentional focus during exposure in specific phobia: A meta-analysis
Clinical Psychology Review
(2013) - et al.
Virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
(2008) - et al.
Virtual reality exposure therapy and standard (in vivo) exposure therapy in the treatment of fear of flying
Behavior Therapy
(2006)
Clinical characteristics of flight phobia
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Virtual reality treatment of flying phobia
IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine
Comprehensive meta-analysis [Computer software]
Introduction to meta-analysis
Statistical power analysis for the social sciences
The effects of psychotherapy for adult depression are overestimated: A meta-analysis of study quality and effect size
Psychological Medicine
Virtual reality exposure in the treatment of fear of flying
Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine
New directions in virtual reality-based therapy for anxiety disorders
International Journal of Cognitive Therapy
Cognitive and behavioral treatments for anxiety disorders: A review of meta-analytic findings
Journal of Clinical Psychology
Fear of flying: Impact on the US air travel industry
Journal of Travel Research
Cited by (56)
Virtual reality exposure with vibrotactile stimulation for the treatment of fear of flying: A pilot study
2024, Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental PsychiatryImpact of virtual reality applications in the treatment of anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials
2023, Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental PsychiatryVirtual reality exposure therapy
2023, Encyclopedia of Mental Health, Third Edition: Volume 1-3Immersive virtual reality in the age of the Metaverse: A hybrid-narrative review based on the technology affordance perspective
2022, Journal of Strategic Information SystemsCitation Excerpt :The studies in the mental health domain mainly examined the effectiveness of exposure therapies. Exposure therapy is used in treatments of phobia (Baños et al., 2011) and anxiety-related mental disorders (Cardoş et al., 2017; Clus et al., 2018; García-Batista et al., 2020; Riva, 1998) by creating a safe environment and exposing patients to the sources of fear (e.g., spiders) to help overcome their fear (Bush, 2008). Immersive VR is also a viable alternative for (1) fear conditioning (Mertens et al., 2019), (2) reduction of social anxiety (Kim et al., 2017), and task-related stress such as having surgery (O’Sullivan et al., 2018), and (3) general mental well-being through exposure to virtual nature to reduce mental fatigue (Chung et al., 2018), meditation training (Crescentini et al., 2016), mindfulness (Seabrook et al., 2020) and social inclusion of older adults to cultural and leisure activities that are otherwise not possible in real life (Fernández et al., 2017).
Effects of virtual reality on learning outcomes in K-6 education: A meta-analysis
2022, Educational Research ReviewCitation Excerpt :For example, VR has been implemented in surgical education (e.g. Harrington et al., 2018; Yoganathan, Finch, Parkin, & Pollard, 2018), sports training (e.g. Panchuk, Klusemann, & Hadlow, 2018), language learning (e.g. Parmaxi, 2020), heritage education (e.g. Ibañez-Etxeberria, Gómez-Carrasco, Fontal, & García-Ceballos, 2020) and even as a therapy to overcome stage fright (e.g. Stupar-Rutenfrans, Ketelaars, & van Gisbergen, 2017). Currently, there are meta-analysis published which evidence the usefulness of VR, particularly in surgical education (Kyaw et al., 2019), to practice specific medical interventions (e.g., Alaker, Wynn, & Arulampalam, 2016) and to treat specific disorders such as anxiety (e.g., Opriş et al., 2012; Powers & Emmelkamp, 2008) and its appearance in specific situations, for example in therapy for flight anxiety (Cardoş, David, & David, 2017). In education, the main reasons why VR is becoming so popular are its immersive, imaginative, and interactive features (Gavish et al., 2015).
The potential of 360-degree virtual reality videos to teach water-safety skills to children
2021, Computers and EducationCitation Excerpt :The 360° VR video learning experience was developed by the researchers and evaluated by comparing its efficacy to more conventional learning methods. Previous research showed that VR based interventions tended to result in medium to large effect sizes (Cardoş, David, & David, 2017; Fodor et al., 2018; Howard, 2017; Schutte, 2019). Therefore, based on 115 participants who completed this study with an alpha = .05, there was a 68% chance on detecting a medium effect size (η2 = 0.06) (Francis & Francis, 2016).
- 1
References marked with an ∗ indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.