🚀👉Check out Neuromind, our new neurofeedback solution based on emotional measurement
🚀👉Check out Neuromind, our new neurofeedback solution based on emotional measurement
🚀👉Check out Neuromind, our new neurofeedback solution based on emotional measurement
All our use cases > Oncology

Oncology

Indications

Use of virtual reality on an anxious child during a puncture in oncology

                                            Clinical studies

Clinical studies

Clinical study published in the palliative_& supportive care journal
-93% -42%
PAIN ANXIETY

Virtual reality used as a distraction for pain and anxiety in breast cancer patients, Palliative and Supportive Care Journal, 2019

Bani Mohammad E. & Ahmad M.

Results: The independent sample t-test showed a significant difference after the pain intervention. The mean of the intervention group was 0.33 (SD = 0.82), and that of the control group was 4.84 (SD = 2.57) (t = -9.19, p < 0.001). The anxiety test showed a significant difference after the intervention between the two groups. The mean of the intervention group was 37.68 (SD=3.80); the mean of the control group was 50.13 (SD=9.32) (t=-7.83, p<0.001).  N=80

Clinical study published in a journal of psychology
-72% -44% -59%
INCONFORT MAXIMUM PAIN TIME THOUGHT TO PAIN

Virtual reality analgesia during venipuncture in paediatric patients with onco-haematological diseases, Frontiers in Psychology, 2018

Atzori B., et al.

Results: During venipuncture, patients’ average pain level was significantly lower during VR for all three pain components:

  • “Time spent thinking about pain” during “No VR” mean = 3.23 (SD = 2.98) vs. “Yes VR” mean = 1.33 (SD = 1.05), p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.62, moderate effect size;
  • “Inconvenience pain-related of pain” during “No VR” mean = 3.27 (SD = 3.43) vs. during “Yes VR” mean = 0.93 (SD = 1.16), p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.70, moderate effect size;
  • “Worst pain felt” during “No VR” mean = 3.60 (SD = 3.00) vs. during “Yes VR” mean = 2.00 (SD = 1.20), p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.51, moderate effect size.

Results: During venipuncture, patients’ average pain level was significantly lower during VR for all three pain components:

– “Time spent thinking about pain” during “No VR” mean = 3.23 (SD = 2.98) vs. “Yes VR” mean = 1.33 (SD = 1.05), p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.62, moderate effect size;

– “Inconvenience pain-related of pain” during “No VR” mean = 3.27 (SD = 3.43) vs. during “Yes VR” mean = 0.93 (SD = 1.16), p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.70, moderate effect size;

– “Worst pain felt” during “No VR” mean = 3.60 (SD = 3.00) vs. during “Yes VR” mean = 2.00 (SD = 1.20), p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.51, moderate effect size.

Testimonies

References