Background: Chronic pain is a disabling condition which is prevalent in about 20% of the adult population. Physiotherapy is the most common non-pharmacological treatment option for chronic pain, but often demonstrates unsatisfactory outcomes. Virtual Reality (VR) may offer the opportunity to complement physiotherapy treatment. As VR has only recently been introduced in physiotherapy care, it is unknown to what extent VR is used and how it is valued by physiotherapists. The aim of this study was to analyse physiotherapists’ current usage of, experiences with and physiotherapist characteristics associated with applying therapeutic VR for chronic pain rehabilitation in Dutch primary care physiotherapy. Methods: This online survey applied two rounds of recruitment: a random sampling round (873 physiotherapists invited, of which 245 (28%) were included) and a purposive sampling round (20 physiotherapists using VR included). Survey results were reported descriptively and physiotherapist characteristics associated with VR use were examined using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: In total, 265 physiotherapists participated in this survey study. Approximately 7% of physiotherapists reported using therapeutic VR for patients with chronic pain. On average, physiotherapists rated their overall experience with therapeutic VR at 7.0 and “whether they would recommend it” at 7.2, both on a 0–10 scale. Most physiotherapists (71%) who use therapeutic VR started using it less than two years ago and use it for a small proportion of their patients with chronic pain. Physiotherapists use therapeutic VR for a variety of conditions, including generalized (55%), neck (45%) and lumbar (37%) chronic pain. Physiotherapists use therapeutic VR mostly to reduce pain (68%), improve coordination (50%) and increase physical mobility (45%). Use of therapeutic VR was associated with a larger physiotherapy practice (OR = 2.38, 95% CI [1.14–4.98]). Unfamiliarity with VR seemed to be the primary reason for not using VR. Discussion: Therapeutic VR for patients with chronic pain is in its infancy in Dutch primary care physiotherapy practice as only a small minority uses VR. Physiotherapists that use therapeutic VR are modestly positive about the technology, with large heterogeneity between treatment goals, methods of administering VR, proposed working mechanisms and chronic pain conditions to treat.

Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the most common chronic pain condition worldwide. Currently, primary care physiotherapy is one of the main treatment options, but effects of this treatment are small. Virtual Reality (VR) could be an adjunct to physiotherapy care, due to its multimodal features. The primary aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of physiotherapy with integrated multimodal VR for patients with complex CLBP, compared to usual primary physiotherapy care.Methods: A multicenter, two-arm, cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) including 120 patients with CLBP from 20 physiotherapists will be conducted. Patients in the control group will receive 12 weeks of usual primary physiotherapy care for CLBP. Patients in the experimental group will receive treatment consisting of 12 weeks of physiotherapy with integrated, immersive, multimodal, therapeutic VR. The therapeutic VR consists of the following modules: pain education, activation, relaxation and distraction. The primary outcome measure is physical functioning. Secondary outcome measures include pain intensity, pain-related fears, pain self-efficacy and economic measures. Effectiveness of the experimental intervention compared to the control intervention on primary and secondary outcome measures will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat principle, using linear mixed-model analyses.Discussion: This pragmatic, multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial, will determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy with integrated, personalized, multimodal, immersive VR in favor of usual physiotherapy care for patients with CLBP.Trial registration: This study is prospectively registered atClinicalTrials.gov(identifier: NCT05701891).

With an aging population and an increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases, Germany’s healthcare system is facing significant challenges that require innovative solutions such as digitalization. Among digital technologies, virtual reality (VR) has shown promise in various healthcare settings; however, its use in physiotherapy practice is unknown. This study aimed to assess the frequency and use of therapeutic VR among physiotherapists in Germany and to identify barriers to its adoption. A cross-sectional survey of 296 physiotherapists was conducted, with responses indicating that only 2.7% had used therapeutic VR in the past year. Most physiotherapists were unfamiliar with VR therapy, suggesting that lack of awareness is the primary barrier. Despite limited current use, a significant proportion of physiotherapists were open to integrating VR technologies in the future. Our findings highlight the need for increased information about therapeutic VR within the physiotherapy community and suggest potential growth as awareness and institutional support increases. Future strategies should focus on promoting the benefits of VR and integrating it into reimbursement frameworks to facilitate wider adoption in patient care.

Around 20% of the Dutch population is living with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP), which is a complex and multifactorial problem. This complexity makes it hard to define a classification system, which results in non-satisfactory referring from the general practitioner (GP). CMP is often explained using the biopsychosocial model in which biological, psychological and social factors cause and maintain the pain. The presented study investigated the factors related to the GPs’ referral for patients with CMP to further treatment.Using convenience sampling, semi-structured interviews and a focus group were conducted among 14 GPs. The interviews were iteratively analyzed using inductive conventional content analysis.Analysis of the interviews demonstrated that there were 28 referral factors that were mentioned by more than 50% of the interviewed GPs. The results showed that the GPs were mostly focussing on the physical (e.g. pain location) and psychological (e.g. acceptation of pain) factors, indicating that they lack focus on the social factors. Furthermore, unfamiliarity of GPs with treatment options was a noteworthy finding.The referral of patients with CMP by GPs is complex and based on multiple factors. To improve referral, it is recommended to include social factors in the decision-making process and to increase the familiarity of the GPs with available treatments.

Background: Virtual reality (VR) has been introduced as a novel intervention in chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) rehabilitation. However, much remains unknown about the effectiveness of VR for CMP. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of VR in daily life versus no treatment for people with CMP who were on a waiting list to receive secondary pain treatment. Methods: This study employed a cluster‐randomised, controlled design. The intervention group received a novel VR application that offers pain education and pain management techniques. This home‐based, stand‐alone, immersive VR intervention was advised to be used daily for four weeks. The control group received no treatment. Primary outcome measure was health‐related quality of life at four weeks; secondary outcome measures included various pain‐related variables (e.g., pain self‐efficacy). Intervention effectiveness was analysed using linear mixed models. Results: Fifty‐three participants were included in this trial (mean age: 55.5 (SD: 15)) of which 70% were women. No significant between‐group differences were found at four weeks on physical (mean difference (95% CI): 0.039 (−2.810 to 2.889), p = 0.978) or mental (3.590 (−1.640 to 8.819), p = 0.172) health‐related quality of life or any of the secondary outcome measures. Discussion: The pain education VR intervention showed no effect in improving outcomes for people with CMP who were on a waiting list, compared to a no‐intervention control group. Future research should investigate for which patients, settings, and timing this VR intervention could be beneficial. Significance Statement: Prior research showed that VR could be beneficial for people with CMP. However, the results of this study showed that VR is ineffective as stand‐alone therapy for people with CMP who were on a waiting list to receive secondary pain treatment.