Digital Interventions for Stress Among Frontline Health Care Workers: Results From a Pilot Feasibility Cohort Trial
Caroline W Espinola,Binh Nguyen,Andrei Torres,Walter Sim,Alice Rueda,Lindsay Beavers,Douglas M Campbell,Hyejung Jung,Wendy Lou,Bill Kapralos,Elizabeth Peter,Adam Dubrowski,Sridhar Krishnan,Venkat Bhat
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/42813
2024-01-09
JMIR Serious Games
Abstract:Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the mental health of health care workers, increasing the rates of stress, moral distress (MD), and moral injury (MI). Virtual reality (VR) is a useful tool for studying MD and MI because it can effectively elicit psychophysiological responses, is customizable, and permits the controlled study of participants in real time. Objective: This study aims to investigate the feasibility of using an intervention comprising a VR scenario and an educational video to examine MD among health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic and to use our mobile app for longitudinal monitoring of stress, MD, and MI after the intervention. Methods: We recruited 15 participants for a compound intervention consisting of a VR scenario followed by an educational video and a repetition of the VR scenario. The scenario portrayed a morally challenging situation related to a shortage of life-saving equipment. Physiological signals and scores of the Moral Injury Outcome Scale (MIOS) and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) were collected. Participants underwent a debriefing session to provide their impressions of the intervention, and content analysis was performed on the sessions. Participants were also instructed to use a mobile app for 8 weeks after the intervention to monitor stress, MD, and mental health symptoms. We conducted Wilcoxon signed rank tests on the PSS and MIOS scores to investigate whether the VR scenario could induce stress and MD. We also evaluated user experience and the sense of presence after the intervention through semi-open-ended feedback and the Igroup Presence Questionnaire, respectively. Qualitative feedback was summarized and categorized to offer an experiential perspective. Results: All participants completed the intervention. Mean pre- and postintervention scores were respectively 10.4 (SD 9.9) and 13.5 (SD 9.1) for the MIOS and 17.3 (SD 7.5) and 19.1 (SD 8.1) for the PSS. Statistical analyses revealed no significant pre- to postintervention difference in the MIOS and PSS scores (P=.11 and P=.22, respectively), suggesting that the experiment did not acutely induce significant levels of stress or MD. However, content analysis revealed feelings of guilt, shame, and betrayal, which relate to the experience of MD. On the basis of the Igroup Presence Questionnaire results, the VR scenario achieved an above-average degree of overall presence, spatial presence, and involvement, and slightly below-average realism. Of the 15 participants, 8 (53%) did not answer symptom surveys on the mobile app. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated VR to be a feasible method to simulate morally challenging situations and elicit genuine responses associated with MD with high acceptability and tolerability. Future research could better define the efficacy of VR in examining stress, MD, and MI both acutely and in the longer term. An improved participant strategy for mobile data capture is needed for future studies. Trial registration: ClinicalTrails.gov NCT05001542; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05001542. International registered report identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/32240.