Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Virtual reality compared with in vivo exposure in the treatment of social anxiety disorder: A three-arm randomised controlled trial

  • Stéphane Bouchard (a1), Stéphanie Dumoulin (a2), Geneviève Robillard (a3), Tanya Guitard (a3), Évelyne Klinger (a4), Hélène Forget (a3), Claudie Loranger (a5) and François Xavier Roucaut (a6)...
Abstract
Background

People with social anxiety disorder (SAD) fear social interactions and may be reluctant to seek treatments involving exposure to social situations. Social exposure conducted in virtual reality (VR), embedded in individual cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT), could be an answer.

Aims

To show that conducting VR exposure in CBT for SAD is effective and is more practical for therapists than conducting exposure in vivo.

Method

Participants were randomly assigned to either VR exposure (n = 17), in vivo exposure (n = 22) or waiting list (n = 20). Participants in the active arms received individual CBT for 14 weekly sessions and outcome was assessed with questionnaires and a behaviour avoidance test. (Trial registration number ISRCTN99747069.)

Results

Improvements were found on the primary (Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale) and all five secondary outcome measures in both CBT groups compared with the waiting list. Conducting exposure in VR was more effective at post-treatment than in vivo on the primary outcome measure and on one secondary measure. Improvements were maintained at the 6-month follow-up. VR was significantly more practical for therapists than in vivo exposure.

Conclusions

Using VR can be advantageous over standard CBT as a potential solution for treatment avoidance and as an efficient, cost-effective and practical medium of exposure.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Virtual reality compared with in vivo exposure in the treatment of social anxiety disorder: A three-arm randomised controlled trial
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Virtual reality compared with in vivo exposure in the treatment of social anxiety disorder: A three-arm randomised controlled trial
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Virtual reality compared with in vivo exposure in the treatment of social anxiety disorder: A three-arm randomised controlled trial
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Stéphane Bouchard, PhD, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Département de psychoéducation et de psychologie, CP 1250, Succ Hull, Gatineau, Québec, Canada. Email: Stephane.bouchard@uqo.ca
Footnotes
Hide All

See editorial, pp. 245–246, this issue.

Declaration of interest

S.B. and G.R. are consultants to and own equity in Cliniques et Développement In Virtuo, which develops virtual environments; however, Cliniques et Développement In Virtuo did not create the virtual environments used in this study. The terms of these arrangements were reviewed and approved by Université du Québec en Outaouais, in accordance with its policy on conflicts of interest.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
1 Kessler, RC, Berglund, P, Demler, O, Jin, R, Merikangas, KR, Walters, EE. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2005; 62: 593602.
2 Ruscio, AM, Brown, TA, Chiu, WT, Sareen, J, Stein, MB, Kessler, RC. Social fears and social phobia in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Psychol Med 2008; 38: 1528.
3 Wang, PS, Berglund, P, Olfson, M, Pincus, HA, Wells, KB, Kessler, RC. Failure and delay in initial treatment contact after first onset of mental disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2005; 62: 603–13.
4 den Boer, JA. Social anxiety disorder/social phobia: epidemiology, diagnosis, neurobiology, and treatment. Compr Psychiatry 2000; 41: 405–15.
5 Olfson, M, Guardino, M, Struening, E, Schneier, FR, Hellman, F, Klein, DF. Barriers to the treatment of social anxiety. Am J Psychiatry 2000; 157: 521–7.
6 Heimberg, RG, Becker, RE. Cognitive-Behavioral Group Therapy for Social Phobia. Guilford Press, 2002.
7 Blanco, C, Heimberg, RG, Schneier, FR, Fresco, DM, Chen, H, Turk, CL, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of phenelzine, cognitive behavioral group therapy, and their combination for social anxiety disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2010; 67: 286–95.
8 Blanco, C, Bragdon, LB, Schneier, FR, Liebowitz, MR. The evidence-based pharmacotherapy of social anxiety disorder. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2013; 16: 235–49.
9 Katzman, MA, Bleau, P, Blier, P, Chokka, P, Kjernisted, K, Van Ameringen, M. Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the management of anxiety, posttraumatic stress and obsessive-compulsive disorders. BMC Psychiatry 2014; 14 (suppl 1): S1.
10 Rodebaugh, TL, Holaway, RM, Heimberg, RG. The treatment of social anxiety disorder. Clin Psychol Rev 2004; 24: 883908.
11 Stangier, U, Heidenreich, T, Peitz, M, Lauterbach, W, Clark, DM. Cognitive therapy for social phobia: individual versus group treatment. Behav Res Ther 2003; 4: 9911007.
12 Tisseau, J. In vivo, in vitro, in silico, in virtuo. 1st Workshop on SMA in Biology at meso or macroscopic scales, Paris, July 2, 2008. Laboratoire de physique nucléaire et de hautes energies, 2008 (https://indico.in2p3.fr/event/912/contribution/1/material/paper/0.pdf).
13 Bouchard, S, Wiederhold, BK. Advances in Virtual Reality and Anxiety Disorders. Springer, 2014.
14 Bouchard, S, Bossé, J, Loranger, C, Klinger, É. Social anxiety disorder: efficacy and virtual humans. In Advances in Virtual Reality and Anxiety Disorders (eds Wiederhold, BK, Bouchard, S): 187209. Springer, 2014.
15 Craske, MG, Treanor, M, Conway, CC, Zbozinek, T, Vervliet, B. Maximizing exposure therapy: An inhibitory learning approach. Behav Res Ther 2014; 58: 1023.
16 Garcia-Palacios, A, Botella, C, Hoffman, H, Fabregat, S. Comparing acceptance and refusal rates of virtual reality exposure vs. in vivo exposure by patients with specific phobias. Cyberpsychol Behav 2007; 10: 722–4.
17 Owens, ME, Beidel, DC. Can virtual reality effectively elicit distress associated with social anxiety disorder? J Psychopathol Behav Assess 2015; 37: 296305.
18 North, MM, North, SM, Coble, JR. Virtual reality therapy: an effective treatment for the fear of public speaking. Int J Virtual Real 1998; 3: 26.
19 Harris, SR, Kemmerling, RL, North, MM. Brief virtual reality therapy for public speaking anxiety. Cyberpsychol Behav 2002; 5: 543–55.
20 Wallach, HS, Safir, MP, Bar-Zvi, M. Virtual reality cognitive behavior therapy for public speaking anxiety. Behav Modif 2009; 33: 314–39.
21 Anderson, PG, Price, M, Edwards, SM, Obasaju, MA, Schmertz, SK, Zimand, E, et al. Virtual reality exposure therapy for social anxiety disorder: a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol 2013; 81: 751–60.
22 Ngai, I, Tully, EC, Anderson, PL. The course of the working alliance during virtual reality and exposure group therapy for social anxiety disorder. Behav Cogn Psychother 2015; 43: 167–81.
23 Klinger, E, Bouchard, S, Légeron, P, Roy, S, Lauer, F, Chemin, I, et al. Virtual reality therapy versus cognitive behavior therapy for social phobia: a preliminary controlled study. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2005; 8: 7688.
24 Kampmann, IL, Emmelkamp, PMG, Hartanto, D, Brinkman, W-P, Zijlstra, BJH, Morina, N. Exposure to virtual social interactions in the treatment of social anxiety disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Behav Res Ther 2016; 77: 147–56.
25 First, MB, Spitzer, RL, Gibbon, M, Williams, JBW. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (Research edn). Biometrics Research Department, 2002.
26 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th edn) (DSM-5). APA, 2013
27 Heeren, A, Maurage, P, Rossignol, M, Vanhaelen, M, Peschard, V, Eeckhout, C, et al. Self-report version of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale: psychometric properties of the French version. Can J Behav Sci 2012; 44: 99107.
28 Mennin, DS, Fresco, DM, Heimberg, RG, Schneier, FR, Davies, SO, Liebowitz, MR. Screening for social anxiety disorder in the clinical setting: using the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale. J Anxiety Disord 2002; 16: 661–73.
29 Safren, SA, Turk, CL, Heimberg, RG. Factor structure of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale. Behav Res Ther 1998; 36: 443–53.
30 Watson, D, Friend, R. Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. J Consult Clin Psychol 1969; 33: 448–57.
31 Beck, AT, Steer, RA. Internal consistencies of the original and revised Beck Depression Inventory. J Clin Psychol 1984; 40: 1365–7.
32 Fydrich, T, Chambless, DL, Perry, KJ, Buergener, F, Beazley, MB. Behavioral assessment of social performance: a rating system for social phobia. Behav Res Ther 1998; 36: 9951010.
33 Robillard, G, Bouchard, S, Dumoulin, S, Guitard, T. The development of the SWEAT questionnaire: a scale measuring costs and efforts inherent to conducting exposure sessions. In The Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine (ed Wiederhold, BK, Riva, G, Kim, SI): 105–10. IOS Press, 2011.
34 Borkovec, TD, Nau, SD. Credibility of analogue therapy rationales. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 1972; 3: 257–60.
35 Horvath, AO, Greenberg, LS. The development and validation of the working alliance inventory. J Counsel Psychology 1989; 36: 223–33.
36 Kennedy, RS, Lane, NE, Berbaum, KS, Lilienthal, MG. Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol 1993; 3: 203–20.
37 Bouchard, S, Robillard, G, Renaud, P. Revising the factor structure of the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire. Ann Rev Cyberther Telemed 2007; 5: 117–22.
38 Bouchard, S, St-Jacques, J, Renaud, P, Wiederhold, BK. Side effects of immersions in virtual reality for anxious people. J Cyber Ther Rehabil 2009; 2: 127–37.
39 Bouchard, S, Robillard, G, Renaud, P, Bernier, F. Exploring new dimensions in the assessment of virtual reality induced side effects. J Computer Inform Techn 2001; 1: 2032.
40 Witmer, BG, Singer, MJ. Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 1998; 7: 225–40.
41 Laforest, M, Bouchard, S, Crétu, AM, Mesly, O. Inducing an anxiety response using a “contaminated” virtual environment: validation of a therapeutic tool for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Front ITC 2016; Sept 5.
42 Clark, DM, Wells, A. A cognitive model of social phobia. In Social Phobia: Diagnosis, Assessment and Treatment (eds Heimberg, RG, Liebowitz, MR, Hope, DA, Schneier, FR): 6993. Guilford Press, 1995.
43 Clark, DM, Ehlers, A, McManus, F, Hackmann, A, Fennell, M, Campbell, H, et al. Cognitive therapy versus fluoxetine in generalized social phobia: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol 2003; 71: 1058–67.
44 Roy, S, Klinger, E, Légeron, P, Lauer, F, Chemin, I, Nugues, P. Definition of a VR-based protocol to treat social phobia. Cyberpsychol Behav 2003; 6: 411–20.
45 Bouchard, S, Gauthier, J, Laberge, B, French, D, Pelletier, MH, Godbout, C. Exposure versus cognitive restructuring in the treatment of panic disorder with agoraphobia. Behav Res Ther 1996; 34: 213–24.
46 Emmelkamp, PMG, Krijn, M, Hulsbosch, AM, De Vries, S, Schuemie, MJ, Van der Mast, CAPG. Virtual reality treatment versus exposure in vivo: a comparative evaluation in acrophobia. Behav Res Ther 2002; 4: 509–16.
47 Bertrand, M, Bouchard, S. Applying the technology acceptance model to VR to people who are favorable to its use. J Cyber TherRehabil 2008; 1: 200–10.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The British Journal of Psychiatry
  • ISSN: 0007-1250
  • EISSN: 1472-1465
  • URL: /core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 25
Total number of PDF views: 496 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 942 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 2nd January 2018 - 17th August 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Virtual reality compared with in vivo exposure in the treatment of social anxiety disorder: A three-arm randomised controlled trial

  • Stéphane Bouchard (a1), Stéphanie Dumoulin (a2), Geneviève Robillard (a3), Tanya Guitard (a3), Évelyne Klinger (a4), Hélène Forget (a3), Claudie Loranger (a5) and François Xavier Roucaut (a6)...
Submit a response

eLetters

Virtual reality compared with in vivo exposure… – A reply to Verma and Verma.

Stéphane Bouchard, Full professor, UQO
12 June 2018

First, we want to thank Verma and Verma (2018) for their review, and comment and thus the use of only self-report is not “acknowledged by the authors”. Patient’s performance in an impromptu speech was recorded and rated by independent assessors. Results on the BAT support results from self-reports.

To clarify the randomization procedure that was used, as stated in the article, we used a table of random numbers. Following the procedures and table from Kirk (1982), before starting recruitment we created a list of which condition participants would be randomly assigned to. When a participant met the selection criteria, he or she was assigned to the next available slot on the list, with number 1, 2 or 3 corresponding to the experimental conditions.

As for the potential effect of self-exposure at home, it is indeed a potential limitation of the study. Care was taken to limit self-exposure with anti in vivo exposure instructions given to participants in the in virtuo condition and no homework given to all participants. Self-exposure, intended or unintended by participants, remains a possibility. But it is doubtful the success of in virtuo exposure, especially when it was superior to in vivo, could be attributed to this limitation.

Verma and Verma mentioned relevant limitations associated with the use of a waiting list compared to a placebo control condition. But when designing a clinical study, these limitations must be carefully weighed against ethical and practical considerations, especially when a gold-standard control condition is also included in the research design. Using Solomon’s 4-group design is indeed a very effective solution to control for the effect of assessment.

In conclusion, it is interesting to highlight one of the findings of the study which might have not caught the attention of Verma and Verma. When it comes to cost / effectiveness, our results showed that using VR to conduct exposure was at least as effective as in vivo, and more effective on some measures such as the LSAS, but also less costly in terms of efforts and financial burden based on the SWEAT.

References:

Kirk, R. .E. (1982). Experimental design (2nd Edition). Brooks/Cole Publishing.

... More

Conflict of interest: Prof Bouchard is the leading author of the article reviewed by Verma and Verma.

Write a reply

Virtual reality compared with in vivo exposure in the treatment of social anxiety disorder

Rohit Verma, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi India
Kamini Verma, Junior Resident, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi India
05 April 2018

The current article builds upon many facets of methodological deficiencies in previous literature on the issue of utility of virtual reality (VR) therapies in managing social anxiety disorder (SAD).

Positive critique -

The study used multiple scales for assessing various facet of SAD and therapy that usually is lacking in studies utilizing psychotherapies (in particular VR/ computer stimulated therapies) such as measure for assessing burden, challenges and costs of conducting exposure, measures to assess the component of how feasible it is for the therapist to perform the therapy and scales for unwanted negative side-effects induced by immersions in VR (cyber sickness). The study made the sample more similar to real-world setting by including patients with other comorbities like depression, generalized anxiety disorder, panic attacks, and substance use which increases the generalizability of findings. It also described the cognitive behavior therapy in somewhat detail which usually is lacking in psychotherapy studies.

The study also reported on the consistency in findings measured by follow up at 6 months. Moreover, it used both performance and non-performance social situations in the treatment of SAD with VR increasing the importance of findings.

Negative critique -

The findings are based only on self-reports (as acknowledged by authors too) restricting its firm conclusions. The information regarding randomization process was not mentioned, although the authors did mention that therapist and patient were concealed of which group they belong till the first therapy session begin.

A possible bias could have arisen due to the fact that individuals receiving in-virtuo CBT after first 7 sessions of cognitive therapy would have gone out in real world and may have experienced real in-vivo exposures which might create bias in outcome by rendering the differences attributable not just solely on basis of in-virtuo exposure.

The researchers used wait-list as controls, which has been reported in psychotherapy literature to be acting not as placebo but rather as a nocebo (Hart et al, 2008). Effect size using a waiting list has been reported to be more as compared to using placebo. Psychological placebo is associated with a significantly greater reduction of symptoms than placement on a waiting list, possibly due to effects of anticipation, hope, or faith. Also, there was no independent, blinded investigator to assess the outcome.

Another facet of consideration in such psychotherapeutic studies is the recognition of the Solomon 4 group design effect as assessments may interact with interventions to either strengthen or weaken the observed effects producing biased estimates of effects (McCambridge et al, 2011).

Overall, the study paves way towards strengthening of the evidence towards utility of VR applications in psychiatric conditions for a positive outcome.

References:

Hart T, Fann JR, Novack TA. The dilemma of the control condition in experience-based cognitive and behavioural treatment research. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2008 Jan;18(1):1-21.

McCambridge J, Butor-Bhavsar K, Witton J, Elbourne D. Can research assessments themselves cause bias in behaviour change trials? A systematic review of evidence from solomon 4-group studies. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25223.
... More

Conflict of interest: None declared

Write a reply

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *