Dementia in care facilities: virtual reality performs no better than cognitive stimulation in a trial

Virtual reality can offer an immersive activity, but does it provide more than a screen-free group activity? In a randomized trial involving 56 residents with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, it did not demonstrate superiority over non-digital cognitive stimulation. Immediate well-being improved after sessions in both groups, with no demonstrated advantage for immersion.

Illustration of a group virtual reality session in a care facility for older adults.
Gadgets & TechEditorial illustration, not study data.

A comparison with another activity, not with no intervention

This multicenter trial evaluated an immersive virtual reality intervention called Lumeen among residents in care facilities. The comparison group took part in non-digital cognitive stimulation activities. This active control allowed researchers to assess whether virtual reality offered added value over another group intervention.

In both groups, participants attended two 45-minute group sessions per week for six weeks, for a total of 12 sessions. Researchers assessed symptoms before and after the intervention using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory and an apathy interview. Immediate well-being and social interactions were observed at each session.

No demonstrated superiority, more interactions without virtual reality

Researchers found no statistically significant difference between the groups in reductions in behavioral and psychological symptoms or in overall well-being outcomes. This does not demonstrate that the interventions are equivalent: the trial simply did not establish an advantage for virtual reality.

Averaged across the 12 sessions, immediate well-being increased between the start and end of sessions in both groups. This improvement therefore cannot be attributed specifically to immersion. Social interactions were also more frequent in the non-digital cognitive stimulation group.

The abstract provides neither the numerical magnitude of the differences nor their uncertainty intervals. It does not allow the practical significance of the observed changes to be determined precisely.

Encouraging feasibility, but safety remains poorly documented

Two mild adverse events were reported. The authors consider the intervention feasible in this population, but the abstract does not specify the nature of these events or their distribution between groups. A small six-week trial is not enough to establish safety in all situations.

These results concern residents with neurocognitive disorders and behavioral symptoms. They do not support conclusions about benefits for people without dementia or lasting effects after the sessions stop.

Limitations to keep in mind

Only the PubMed abstract was consulted, not the full text. The sample consists of 56 residents, and the intervention lasts six weeks. Effect sizes, uncertainty intervals, and details of adverse events are not provided in this abstract. Funding and conflicts of interest were not checked.

What we can take away

This trial does not justify favoring virtual reality over non-digital group cognitive stimulation to reduce dementia symptoms. Its added value remains to be established in adequately sized trials.

Sources and provenance

Partager cet article

X f in

An error or a source to report? Contact the editorial team.