Clinical implementation of virtual reality in neurorehabilitation: a scoping review of barriers, facilitators, and motivational factors.
Ahmed S Alanazi, Mohammed M Alrashidi, Reem Aljohani and 5 others
PMID 42769523WHAT IT FOUND
Clinicians perceived VR as a useful add-on, but adoption was uneven.
Funding, training, technical support and workflow were barriers; patient motivation, peer support and management commitment helped.
Key findings
01In one included survey of 1,071 rehabilitation practitioners, 46% had used VR or active video games at least once and 12% reported regular use.
02Common barriers were limited funding, inadequate training and technical support, low clinician knowledge and confidence, technological challenges, and organisational constraints.
03Common facilitators were positive clinician attitudes, patient motivation, training opportunities, peer support, and institutional commitment to innovation.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 11 studies were included, and no formal critical appraisal of study quality was conducted, so the themes are descriptive rather than a measure of how important each barrier is. The included studies were very different in VR type, population, design and outcomes, so results could not be directly compared. Only English-language studies published between 2010 and 2025 were included, and exclusion reasons were not recorded by category, so relevant work may have been missed. Included studies provided limited information about adverse events such as cybersickness, dizziness, nausea, visual discomfort or fatigue, and limited accessibility information for people with cognitive, sensory, visual, communication or age-related impairments. Meaningful comparisons between fully immersive, semi-immersive and non-immersive systems were not possible because many studies used multiple modalities or did not report outcomes separately. The review did not evaluate clinical effectiveness, so therapists cannot use it to decide whether VR improves recovery.
Declared interests
The authors declared that they received no financial support for the work or its publication.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that VR improves neurological function because therapists perceived benefits and reported engagement. This review mapped implementation factors, not effectiveness, and the included studies used different VR technologies and active video games, so effects cannot be attributed to VR alone.