1741 - VIRTUAL REALITY EXPOSURE THERAPY WITH COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY FOR SOCIAL ANXIETY DISORDER: REPORTING QUALITY OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

Session: D17S001 - Innovations and Challenges in Professional Practice
AUTHORS:
Wang Nana (Department of Social Work, Hong Kong Baptist University ~ Hong Kong ~ China) , Pan Jiayan (Department of Social Work, Hong Kong Baptist University ~ Hong Kong ~ China)
Abstract text:
Introduction:Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) is a prevalent and debilitating condition marked by intense fear and avoidance of social situations. While cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is effective for the treatment of SAD, its accessibility remains limited. Virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) integrated with CBT or internet-based CBT (iCBT) offers a promising digital alternative. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this area show variations in methodological reporting, and the technical descriptions could be enhanced.


Purpose:This study aimed to evaluate the risk of bias and reporting quality of RCTs investigating VRET combined with CBT or iCBT for SAD, and to identify common methodological limitations and integration patterns.


Method:Systematic searches were conducted across five electronic databases from inception to August 4, 2025. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2.0), and for reporting quality using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Social and Psychological Interventions (CONSORT-SPI).


Results:From 667 identified records, seven RCTs involving 779 participants were included. Overall adherence to CONSORT-SPI guidelines was 64.1%. Notable reporting deficiencies were observed in allocation concealment (0% reported), randomization sequence generation personnel (0% reported), handling of missing data (28.6%), and documentation of unintended effects (42.9%). Three studies raised some concerns regarding RoB 2.0. VR exposure scenarios ranged from 3 to 9 per RCT, with job interview simulations being the most frequently employed (5 studies). CBT was delivered via digital platforms (web or app) in three studies and face-to-face in four, with session counts ranging from 5 to 10, based mainly on Beck or Clark and Wells models.


Conclusion:Current RCTs of VRET combined with CBT/iCBT for SAD show moderate reporting quality and face methodological challenges, particularly in design transparency and bias control. Future studies should improve protocol transparency, standardize VR descriptions, and adhere to reporting guidelines to enhance validity and clinical applicability.