Summary Background The percentage of smartphone users—especially among minors—is growing, and so is the body of literature hinting at increasing rates of problematic smartphone use in children and adolescents. However, comprehensive reviews regarding this issue are still scarce. Objective The main aim of this review was to provide an overview of studies focusing on specific risk factors predicting problematic smartphone use in children and adolescents. Methods A literature search was conducted in Google Scholar and PubMed. Results The search yielded 38 articles that met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Research regarding influencing factors such as gender, age, and social, family, and personality factors, as well as duration of use and use patterns, could be found. Results seem to cautiously suggest that using a smartphone for gaming and social networking might be risk factors, whereas having good friendships might constitute a protective factor. Also, female adolescents seem to be prone to a higher smartphone addiction risk than male adolescents. For family, school, and personality factors, results are still scarce, and more research is needed. Nevertheless, strict parenting, low self-control, and low self-esteem seem to increase risks for problematic use, whereas academic motivation and school success might decrease this risk. Conclusion A concise theoretical conceptualization of problematic smartphone use and corresponding standardized measures are needed to increase comparability of future studies and to thereby add to a clearer understanding of this contested concept.

Contrary to specific phobias, for which Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy (VRET) constitutes an effective treatment, uncertainty still exists regarding the usefulness of VRET for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Therefore, this meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of VRET for PTSD as compared to waitlist and active comparators. A literature search yielded nine controlled studies encompassing 296 participants (124 VRET, 172 controls). The differences between conditions regarding the primary outcome of PTSD symptom severity and the secondary outcome of depressive and anxiety symptoms post-treatment were calculated using Hedges’ g. Compared to waitlist controls, VRET showed a significantly better outcome for PTSD symptoms (g = 0.62, p = .017) and depressive symptoms (g = 0.50, p = .008). There was no significant difference between VRET and active comparators regarding PTSD symptoms (g = 0.25, p = .356) and depressive symptoms (g = 0.24, p = .340) post-treatment. No significant effects emerged for anxiety symptoms. These findings suggest that VRET may be as effective as active comparators for PTSD patients. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of trials and the substantial number of – predominantly male – military service members studied. Additional controlled trials, considering a wider range of trauma types and balanced gender, are required to strengthen the evidence.

Over the past decades, virtual reality (VR) has found its way into biofeedback (BF) therapy programs. Using VR promises to overcome challenges encountered in traditional BF such as low treatment motivation, low attentional focus and the difficulty of transferring learnt abilities to everyday life. Yet, a comprehensive research synthesis is still missing. Hence, this scoping review aims to provide an overview over empirical studies on VR based BF regarding key outcomes, included samples, used soft- and hardware, BF parameters, mode of application and potential limitations. We systematically searched Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Google Scholar and Open Grey for empirical research. Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Samples mostly consisted of healthy (44.4%) and/or adult (77.7%) participants. Outcomes were mainly anxiety (44.4%), stress (44.4%) or pain reduction (11.1%), which were reduced by the VR-BF interventions at least as much as by classical BF. Participants in VR-BF interventions showed higher motivation and involvement as well as a better user experience. Heart rate or heart rate variability were the most frequently used BF parameters (50.0%), and most VR-BF interventions (72.2%) employed a natural environment (e.g., island). Currently, there is no clear evidence that VR-BF is more effective than traditional BF. Yet, results indicate that VR-BF may have advantages regarding motivation, user experience, involvement and attentional focus. Further research is needed to assess the specific impact of VR and gamification. Also, testing a broader range of clinical and younger samples would allow more far-reaching conclusions.