Next Article in Journal
Human-Aware Control for Physically Interacting Robots
Previous Article in Journal
Additional Intraoperative Autologous-Derived Platelet-Rich Stroma to Transanal Flap Repair for the Treatment of Cryptoglandular Transsphincteric Fistulas in a Tertiary Referral Center: Long-Term Outcomes of a Prospective Pilot Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Virtual Reality-Based Therapy Can Enhance Balance and Muscular Endurance in Children and Adolescents with Down Syndrome: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Bioengineering
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/bioengineering12020106
bioengineering-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Usage of Virtual Reality Technology in Physiotherapy in Germany: Results from a Survey

by
Alexander Elser
1,2,*,
Maybritt Ohse
1,
Camilla Frankenstein
1,
Madlin Leeuw
1,
Sophie Schiebler
1,
Sandra Schmieder
1,
Syl Slatman
3 and
Axel Georg Meender Schäfer
1
1
Faculty of Social Work and Health, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Hildesheim/Holzminden/Göttingen, 31134 Hildesheim, Germany
2
Department Therapy Science I, Faculty 4 for Human Sciences, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, 03025 Cottbus, Germany
3
Department of Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Group, HAN University of Applied Sciences, 6503 Nijmegen, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Bioengineering 2025, 12(2), 106; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020106
Submission received: 29 November 2024 / Revised: 10 January 2025 / Accepted: 15 January 2025 / Published: 23 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality for Physiotherapy Interventions)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

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.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

With an aging global population and an increasing burden of non-communicable diseases such as musculoskeletal disorders, diabetes and stroke, healthcare systems are facing significant challenges [1]. In 2022, more than a fifth of the German population was aged 65 or older. According to demographic projections, this percentage will rise to 28% by 2050 [2]. This will also lead to a rising number of people affected by musculoskeletal diseases and resulting chronic impairments in Germany [1,3]. The German healthcare system is already experiencing funding problems and costs in the healthcare professions have risen sharply in recent years [4]. A closer look at the costs spent on physiotherapy reveals a high demand for outpatient first care physiotherapy. In 2021, there were over 34 million medical prescriptions distributed among approximately 8.7 million members of a public health insurance company [4]. Expenditure on prescribed outpatient therapies reported by this insurance company totaled more than EUR 1.4 billion in 2021. Physiotherapy accounted for 73.1% of the costs incurred in this area, with an increase of at least 50% over the last 5 years [4]. This highlights the need for innovative solutions to ensure adequate healthcare in the future.
Digitalization offers an opportunity for more effective and therefore more cost-efficient care in the healthcare system in general and in the therapy professions in particular. To ensure an equitable and appropriate medical service, the German government has responded with the policy Accelerating the Digitalization of the Healthcare System [5], which aims to support digital technologies to meet the current challenges in the healthcare system. One of these digital technologies is virtual reality (VR). Positive effects of VR interventions have already been observed in, for example, the treatment of patients undergoing chemotherapy [6], after stroke [7,8], after spinal cord injury [9], and also in elderly people with cognitive impairment [10] and in children undergoing clinical procedures [11].
When implementing VR interventions in healthcare, there is already initial knowledge about the barriers and facilitators that may be encountered. Previous research has identified organizational structures and the VR technology itself as barriers to implementing VR interventions in various healthcare settings [12,13,14]. Regarding the use of VR in physiotherapy, the VR device itself seems to be a major barrier due to technical limitations and inappropriate VR devices for specific patients and their needs. Also, a lack of appropriate tutorials in the VR software and lack of protocols for VR interventions are barriers, and patient-related factors such as low gaming skills play a role in the implementation of VR interventions [15,16]. Conversely, staff and healthcare professionals can act as facilitators by reducing anxiety about new technologies and changing patients’ attitudes towards VR. In particular, data security and potential dependencies arising from the use of VR in healthcare [17] can cause uncertainty for both patients and therapists. Healthcare professionals are also generally interested in using VR in rehabilitation and have positive expectations of therapeutic VR in treatment and rehabilitation. In addition, patients also have positive expectations, describing VR as a treatment that they find fun and enjoyable [13,14,15,16].
There is still very little research into whether and how therapeutic VR is being used in healthcare and physiotherapy. Virtual reality has been widely used in medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, with positive effects on the treatment of various health conditions [18]. A survey in the Netherlands showed that only about 7% of physiotherapists there use therapeutic VR. A regression analysis showed that only the size of the practice was associated with the use of VR [19]. However, the frequency of use in physiotherapy in Germany is currently unknown.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to describe how many physiotherapists in Germany use therapeutic VR. Secondary aims were to describe how they use therapeutic VR and if they do not use it, what the reasons are.

2. Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted to determine the extent of virtual reality intervention in physiotherapy in Germany. The survey did not require an approved ethics proposal as no vulnerable group was targeted and all data were collected and analyzed anonymously at all times. The research group is committed to respecting the German Research Foundation’s Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice [20] and the Declaration of Helsinki [21] throughout the research process. The data were collected in May and June 2024 using a SoSci Survey [22]. This study is reported in accordance with the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Survey (CHERRIES) [23].

2.1. Questionnaire

The questionnaire is based on a Dutch questionnaire used by Slatman et al., 2024 [19]. Items were adapted to reflect the differences between the Dutch and German health systems and to broaden the questionnaire from chronic pain treatment with therapeutic VR to general use in physiotherapy. For example, the item on the highest professional degree was adapted as there are different educational paths in physiotherapy in Germany than in the Netherlands. In order to cover the breadth of physiotherapy, an item was added asking about the area of application of therapeutic VR. The survey included five demographic questions (gender, age, practice size, years of experience as a physiotherapist, physiotherapy specialization). Physiotherapists who had used therapeutic VR in the past year had to answer 13 questions and physiotherapists who had not used therapeutic VR had to answer 7 questions. A filter question was used to guide participants to the relevant questions. The order of the questions was constant, with no alternation or randomization. To complete the survey, all questions had to be answered, and there was a ‘no information’ option in all questions if a physiotherapist did not wish to answer a particular question. The survey took physiotherapists approximately five minutes to complete if they used therapeutic VR and three minutes if they did not and there was no option to go back through the survey to change answers on previous pages. The survey was pilot tested by 8 physiotherapists who were not part of the research group and the survey can be found in the Appendix A.

2.2. Recruitment

The survey was open, with no password protection, as the aim of the recruitment strategy was to reach a wide range of diverse physiotherapists. Participants should preferably come from different areas of physiotherapy and have different experiences, qualifications or specializations. It was therefore decided to contact a national professional association, professional training centers, rehabilitation clinics, general hospitals and registered outpatient practices in urban or rural areas directly by email. In addition, personal contacts and social media, particularly Instagram, were used by the research group to disseminate the survey to potential participants. All participants responded to the survey voluntarily and received no compensation for their participation.

2.3. Sample Size

According to Mossig (2012) [24], the sample size must be at least 384 from a population of approximately 250,000 physiotherapists in Germany to deviate by no more than 5 percentage points from the actual result of the population with a confidence level of 95%.

2.4. Analysis

The collected data were downloaded and analyzed using SPSS version 28 (IBM corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). The demographic data were tested for normal distribution and presented by median, interquartile range (IQ) and frequencies. The results to the closed-ended questions were analyzed by calculating percentages and presented in tables and graphs. The results were then compared with a recent study using the same methods and aims in the Netherlands [19].

3. Results

Approximately 1000 emails were sent with a request for voluntary participation and an online link. Two reminder emails were sent one and four weeks later. In total, the survey was clicked on 1143 times. Of these, 266 physiotherapists completed the survey and 296 completed the survey to the extent that we considered it valid. This was the point at which participants voted on the primary research question of whether they had used therapeutic VR in the last 12 months. Therefore, 296 records were included in the analysis, the demographic characteristics of which are shown in Table 1. The median age of the total sample was 46 years with an IQ of 25 years. The majority of participants were female (66.2%) and held a vocational qualification as their highest level of qualification (68.2%). Nearly half of participants had a working experience of 20 years or more (49.7%).
Of the 296 participating physiotherapists, eight (2.7%) used therapeutic VR in their treatments in the past 12 months. The median age of these physiotherapists was 47 years (IQ 36). Compared to the physiotherapists who did not use VR, it appears that more of them had an academic degree and that there were either more than twenty other physiotherapists or only one physiotherapist employed in the facilities where they worked. There is no recognizable difference in terms of work experience.
Physiotherapists used therapeutic VR with patients of all ages. It was most commonly used for neurological conditions, chronic pain and musculoskeletal conditions. Almost all physiotherapists used therapeutic VR to activate their patients, but also other proposed working mechanisms such as relaxation and education are used. Full details of use are given in Table 2.
Seventeen of the total sample of physiotherapists used therapeutic VR in the past but no longer do so. The main reasons for stopping therapeutic VR were costs and dissatisfying results. Most of them used it for musculoskeletal conditions and are considering using therapeutic VR again in the future. See Table 3 for more details.
The main reason why physiotherapists in Germany had never used therapeutic VR was because they had never heard of it, with only a few stating that costs were the main barrier. Overall, 34.4% of all physiotherapists can imagine using therapeutic VR in the future, 41.4% said maybe and 18.3% said they will not use it in the future. Table 4 provides more information about how physiotherapists imagine using therapeutic VR in the future.
Compared to a study by Slatman et al. (2024) [19] in the Netherlands, the frequency of use of therapeutic VR in Germany is slightly different (Table 5). In Germany, 2.7% of physiotherapists use therapeutic VR, compared to 7.3% in the Netherlands. Adding the two samples together results in a frequency of use of 5.0% with a sample size of 515 physiotherapists.

4. Discussion

This was the first survey to gain insight into the use of therapeutic VR in physiotherapy care in Germany. Out of 296 physiotherapists, a minority of 2.7% had used therapeutic VR in the last twelve months. The main reason for this lack of use is that 67.2% of participants have never heard of therapeutic VR. However, 75.8% can imagine using therapeutic VR in their treatments in the future.
A comparison of the sample in this study with the population revealed slight differences. In terms of gender distribution, 74.6% of physiotherapists in Germany are female in the population [25]. In our sample, 66.2% of respondents classified themselves as female. In addition, 32.8% of the sample have an academic degree, which is significantly higher than in the population, as the scientific service of the German Bundestag stated a rate of 2.65% for physiotherapists with an academic degree in 2021 [26]. The distribution of physiotherapists in the different settings of outpatient care, clinical and rehabilitation centers reflects the population well [27].
The limited use of therapeutic VR is also reflected in a recent survey in the Netherlands. There, 7% of physiotherapists reported using therapeutic VR to treat people with chronic pain, and a regression analysis showed that the larger the physiotherapy practice, the more likely it was to use therapeutic VR [19]. Interestingly, our data also show that therapeutic VR was mainly used in larger facilities with more than 20 physiotherapists. It also emerged that physiotherapists in both the Netherlands and Germany use therapeutic VR with a wide range of age groups of patients and target coordination, mobility and pain relief for their patients. Similarly, the overall experience of therapeutic VR was comparable with 7.0 in the Netherlands and 6.43 in this study [19]. Looking at the reasons why physiotherapists who used to use therapeutic VR no longer do so, it is striking that in addition to cost, dissatisfaction with the results and negative patient experiences are the main reasons mentioned. This contrasts somewhat with reviews that report high levels of acceptability and feasibility of VR interventions [28]. However, there are also reviews that have looked at adverse events, such as cybersickness, which show that such events are still inaccurately and incompletely recorded and reported in therapeutic VR research [29].
Very little is known about the extent to which digital applications are used in physiotherapy in Germany. According to a survey conducted in 2018 and 2019, only 2.8% of physiotherapists use telemedicine and only 15% use electronic patient files [30]. However, much has changed in the area of digitalization since then, due to the COVID19 pandemic, and some implementation processes may have been accelerated, so the number is likely to be higher. Another indicator that usage could increase in the coming years is the positive attitude of physiotherapists and patients towards digital applications [31,32], as shown in other research that healthcare professionals play a key role in the implementation of digital interventions [33].
This study shows that many physiotherapists are also considering the use of therapeutic VR (76.7%). Focus groups with physiotherapists showed that they see great potential in therapeutic VR to open up new opportunities in rehabilitation [34]. However, there were still problems with implementation, such as the lack of evidence on the dosage of therapeutic VR [35]. VR devices themselves also appear to be a major barrier due to technological limitations that can make VR devices inappropriate for certain patients and their needs, such as those with neck pain. The software used can also be a barrier due to a lack of tutorials [16]. The main barrier in our survey seems to be that many have not received any information about the possibility of treatment with therapeutic VR (67.2%). This is in line with the results of the survey in the Netherlands, where 71.4% of physiotherapists reported that they were unfamiliar with therapeutic VR [19]. This barrier is also evident in the adoption of other digital health applications (Digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen [DiGA] [36]) in Germany. A survey showed that little, bad or no experience with applications is a barrier and that this leads to low abilities and confidence in using technology [37]. Therefore, part of a future strategy to increase the use of therapeutic VR and other digital applications could be to promote them to relevant professional groups through various channels. Healthcare professional education offers an important opportunity here, but it was found that digital health competencies are still underrepresented in physiotherapy education [35].
Only around 10% of physiotherapists say that costs are a barrier to use therapeutic VR in their treatment. However, it is still a problem that treatment with therapeutic VR or other digital applications cannot yet be reimbursed separately by health insurance companies. This means that any additional costs cannot be reimbursed by physiotherapists. The exception is digital health applications, but this register does not yet include any therapeutic VR [38].
Based on our results, future steps could be to taken to make therapeutic VR more widely known within the physiotherapy community, for example, through articles in practitioner journals or presentations at congresses. Another option would be to develop specific implementation strategies to support adoption and help ensure that therapeutic VR is used sustainably. Another possible step towards a more impactful use of VR would be a more precise understanding of how therapeutic VR works, for whom and at what dosage, in order to be able to make precise recommendations to physiotherapists.

5. Limitations

The survey also has various limitations. In regard to the sample, the number of participating physiotherapists did not reach the intended sample size of 384. At the same time, the sample of physiotherapists using VR shows slightly different distributions in terms of gender and academic degree compared to the total population. This can lead to bias, which may limit the generalization of the results. Similarly, the small number of physiotherapists who have used therapeutic VR in the last year means that the validity of our results is compromised in regard to factors that influence its use and in which areas therapeutic VR is primarily used.

6. Conclusions

This study provides a first insight into the adoption of therapeutic virtual reality (VR) in physiotherapy in Germany. Despite the potential of VR to improve healthcare treatments, its use among German physiotherapists remains limited, with only 2.7% having used it in the past year. The main barrier identified in this study is a lack of awareness, with 67.2% of non-users having never heard of therapeutic VR. Encouragingly, a significant proportion of physiotherapists are open to implement VR into their practice in the future. To facilitate wider adoption, focused efforts should be made to increase awareness and understanding of the benefits of VR within the physiotherapy community, supported by appropriate reimbursement strategies. Further research and targeted implementation strategies could promote the sustainable use of therapeutic VR in physiotherapy practices in Germany.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.E., S.S. (Syl Slatman) and A.G.M.S.; methodology, A.E., S.S. (Syl Slatman) and A.G.M.S.; investigation, A.E., M.O., C.F., M.L., S.S. (Sophie Schiebler) and S.S. (Sandra Schmieder); analysis A.E., M.O., C.F., M.L., S.S. (Sophie Schiebler), S.S. (Sandra Schmieder) and A.G.M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.E. and M.O.; writing—review and editing, A.E., M.O., C.F., M.L., S.S. (Sophie Schiebler), S.S. (Sandra Schmieder), S.S. (Syl Slatman) and A.G.M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The survey did not require an approved ethics proposal as no vulnerable group was targeted and all data were collected and analyzed anonymously at all times. The research group has also committed to respecting the German Research Foundation’s Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice [20] and the Declaration of Helsinki [21] throughout the research process.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data sets generated and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Survey

Questions 1–5: demographic characteristics of all physiotherapists
Questions 6–19: physiotherapists who currently use therapeutic VR
Questions 20–27: Physiotherapists who do not currently use therapeutic VR
  • To which gender do you assign yourself?
    • Male
    • Female
    • Diverse
  • How many employees does the physiotherapy practice where you work have?
    • 1
    • 2–4
    • 5–9
    • 10–14
    • 15–19
    • 20–24
    • 25–30
    • Over 30
  • How long have you been working as a physiotherapist?
    • 0–4 years
    • 5–9 years
    • 10–14 years
    • 15–19 years
    • 20 years or more
  • How old are you?
  • Have you specialized as a physiotherapist? *
    • No
    • Yes, in pediatrics
    • Yes, in neurology
    • Yes, in musculoskeletal physiotherapy (orthopaedics/manual therapy)
    • Yes, in sports physiotherapy
    • Yes, in psychosomatic physiotherapy
    • Yes, in gynecology
    • Yes, in geriatrics
    • Yes, in another area: (open question)
  • Have you used therapeutic virtual reality in the last year?
    • Yes
    • No
  • What is your general experience with therapeutic VR in your physiotherapy treatment?
    (Scale from 0 (very poor) to 10 (very good))
  • To what extent would you recommend therapeutic VR to a physiotherapist colleague (scale from 0 (I would definitely not recommend) to 10 (I would definitely recommend))?
  • How long have you been using therapeutic VR?
    • <1 year
    • 1–2 years
    • 3–5 years
    • >5 years
  • What age groups do you use therapeutic VR for?
    • <18 years old
    • 18–30 years old
    • 31–50 years old
    • 51–70 years old
    • 71 years old
  • For what conditions do you use therapeutic VR?
    • Musculoskeletal disorders
    • Medically unexplained physical symptoms
    • Heart, arterial or pulmonary disease
    • Neurological disorders
    • Geriatric diseases
    • Oncology
    • Pediatric Diseases
    • Other
  • For which musculoskeletal disorders do you use therapeutic VR?
    • Non-specific complaints of the cervical spine
    • Non-specific back pain
    • Arthritis
    • Headaches or dizziness
    • Pelvic or hip problems
    • Shoulder or arm pain
    • Fibromyalgia
    • Generalized pain complaints
    • Other
  • How many patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain do you treat with therapeutic VR as a percentage of your total patient population?
    • 0–10%
    • 11–25%
    • 26–40%
    • 41–60%
    • 61–75%
    • 76–80%
    • Above 80%
  • How do you use therapeutic VR?
    • Only in practice
    • Only in the patient’s home
    • Both
  • For which possible mechanism(s) of action do you use therapeutic VR? *
    • Education
    • Exposure therapy
    • Relaxation
    • Activation
    • Other
  • For which treatment goals do you use therapeutic VR? *
    • Improving physical mobility
    • Improving stability
    • Improve strength
    • Reduce pain
    • Improve Endurance
    • Improve coordination
    • Other
  • What kind of hardware are you using for therapeutic VR? *
    • VR headset
    • Nintendo Wii
    • Xbox Kinect
    • Other
  • What type of VR headset do you use for therapeutic VR? *
    • Oculus Go
    • Oculus Quest
    • Oculus Rift (S)
    • Samsung Gear
    • HTC Vive
    • Valve Index
    • Vive Force
    • Pico G2
    • Pico Neo 3
    • Pico 4
    • Other
  • What type of therapeutic VR software do you use? *
    • Reducept
    • SyncVR Fit
    • VRelax
    • Corpus VR (InMotion)
    • VRendle
    • Kana
    • SyncVR Relax & Distract
    • Not applicable
    • Other
From here for those who are not currently using it:
20.
Have you used therapeutic VR in the past?
  • Yes
  • Never
21.
Why have you stopped using therapeutic VR? *
  • Cost
  • Dissatisfied with the results
  • Negative patient experience
  • Negative experiences with physical therapists
  • Other reasons
22.
Would you consider using therapeutic VR again?
  • I would
  • Would not
23.
Why do you not use therapeutic VR? *
  • Cost
  • I am not treating appropriate patients
  • I have never read about it
  • Other reasons
24.
For which conditions would you like to use therapeutic VR? *
  • Musculoskeletal disorders
  • Medically unexplained physical symptoms
  • Heart, arterial or pulmonary disease
  • Neurological disorders
  • Geriatric diseases
  • Oncology
  • Pediatric Diseases
  • Other
25.
For which potential mechanism(s) of action would you like to use therapeutic VR? *
  • Education
  • Exposure therapy
  • Relaxation
  • Activation
  • Other
26.
For which treatment goals would you like to use therapeutic VR? *
  • Improve physical mobility
  • Improve stability
  • Improve strength
  • Reduce pain
  • Improve Endurance
  • Improve coordination
  • Other
27.
Why do you not use therapeutic VR? *
  • Cost
  • I do not have suitable patients
  • I have never read about it
  • Other reasons
* More than one option possible

References

  1. Collaborators, G. 2021 F. Burden of Disease Scenarios for 204 Countries and Territories, 2022–2050: A Forecasting Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet 2024, 403, 2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. OECD, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Germany: Country Health Profile 2023, State of Health in the EU; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2023; ISBN 978-92-64-89861-5. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lange, C.; Jentsch, F.; Allen, J.; Hoebel, J.; Kratz, A.L.; von der Lippe, E.; Müters, S.; Schmich, P.; Thelen, J.; Wetzstein, M.; et al. Data Resource Profile: German Health Update (GEDA)—The Health Interview Survey for Adults in Germany. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2015, 44, 442–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Schmitt, N.; Wende, D. BARMER Heilmittelreport 2022; BARMER: Berlin, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit. Gesetz Zur Beschleunigung der Digitalisierung des Gesundheitswesens (Digital-Gesetz—DigiG); Bundesministerium für Gesundheit: Berlin, Germany, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  6. Alvarado-Omenat, J.J.; Llamas-Ramos, R.; García-García, D.; Correyero-León, M.; Fonseca-Sánchez, E.; Llamas-Ramos, I. Effectiveness of Virtual Reality in Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy. Systematic Review. Int. J. Cancer 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bargeri, S.; Scalea, S.; Agosta, F.; Banfi, G.; Corbetta, D.; Filippi, M.; Sarasso, E.; Turolla, A.; Castellini, G.; Gianola, S. Effectiveness and Safety of Virtual Reality Rehabilitation after Stroke: An Overview of Systematic Reviews. eClinicalMedicine 2023, 64, 102220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, S.; Meng, H.; Zhang, Y.; Mao, J.; Zhang, C.; Qian, C.; Ma, Y.; Guo, L. Effect of Virtual Reality-Based Rehabilitation on Mental Health and Quality of Life of Stroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2024; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, L.; Zhang, H.; Ai, H.; Liu, Y. Effects of Virtual Reality Rehabilitation after Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2024, 21, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mao, Q.; Zhao, Z.; Yu, L.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, H. The Effects of Virtual Reality–Based Reminiscence Therapies for Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2024, 26, e53348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Priyadarshini, S.; Agarwala, S.; Priya, H.; Jain, V.; Goel, P.; Dhua, A.K.; Yadav, D.K.; Anand, S.; Patel, N. Is Virtual Reality Effective in Decreasing Pain during Clinical Procedures among Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Indian Assoc. Pediatr. Surg. 2024, 29, 465–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Glegg, S.M.N.; Levac, D.E. Barriers, Facilitators and Interventions to Support Virtual Reality Implementation in Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review. PMR 2018, 10, 1237–1251.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hung, L.; Mann, J.; Wallsworth, C.; Upreti, M.; Kan, W.; Temirova, A.; Wong, K.L.Y.; Ren, H.; To-Miles, F.; Wong, J.; et al. Facilitators and Barriers to Using Virtual Reality and Its Impact on Social Engagement in Aged Care Settings: A Scoping Review. Gerontol. Geriatr. Med. 2023, 9, 233372142311663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kouijzer, M.M.T.E.; Kip, H.; Bouman, Y.H.A.; Kelders, S.M. Implementation of Virtual Reality in Healthcare: A Scoping Review on the Implementation Process of Virtual Reality in Various Healthcare Settings. Implement Sci. Commun. 2023, 4, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Brepohl, P.C.A.; Leite, H. Virtual Reality Applied to Physiotherapy: A Review of Current Knowledge. Virtual Real. 2022, 27, 71–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Elser, A.; Lange, M.; Kopkow, C.; Schäfer, A.G. Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of Virtual Reality Interventions for People with Chronic Pain: Scoping Review. JMIR XR Spat. Comput. 2024, 1, e53129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Carneiro, J.A.S.; Cardoso, A.; Santos, F.P.; Milagre, S.T.; Lamounier, E.A.; Oliveira, L.C. Ethical Aspects in a Virtual Reality Environment. In Proceedings of the 2023 18th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Aveiro, Portugal, 20–23 June 2023; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  18. Pallavicini, F.; Pepe, A.; Clerici, M.; Mantovani, F. Virtual Reality Applications in Medicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review. JMIR Serious Games 2022, 10, e35000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Slatman, S.; Staal, J.B.; van Goor, H.; Ostelo, R.; Soer, R.; Knoop, J. Limited Use of Virtual Reality in Primary Care Physiotherapy for Patients with Chronic Pain. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2024, 25, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Leitlinien zur Sicherung Guter Wissenschaftlicher Praxis; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft: Bonn, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  21. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA 2013, 310, 2191–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Leiner, D.J. SoSci Survey (Version 3.5.02) [Computer Software]. 2024. Available online: https://www.soscisurvey.de (accessed on 10 January 2025).
  23. Eysenbach, G. Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J. Med. Internet Res. 2004, 6, e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mossig, I. Stichproben, Stichprobenauswahlverfahren und Berechnung des Minimal Erforderlichen Stichprobenumfangs; Universität Bremen, Institut für Geographie: Bremen, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bundesagentur für Arbeit. Statistik Der Bundesagentur Für Arbeit–Beschäftigte Nach Berufen. Available online: https://statistik.arbeitsagentur.de/SiteGlobals/Forms/Suche/Einzelheftsuche_Formular.html?topic_f=beschaeftigung-sozbe-bo-heft (accessed on 28 October 2024).
  26. Wissenschaftliche Dienste, Deutscher Bundestag. Zur Akademisierung in der Physiotherapie, Logopädie und Ergotherapie; Deutscher Bundestag: Berlin, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  27. Physio Deutschland. Zahlen, Daten, Fakten zur Physiotherapie. 2021. Available online: https://www.physio-deutschland.de/fileadmin/data/bund/Dateien_oeffentlich/Beruf_und_Bildung/Zahlen__Daten__Fakten/Zahlen-Daten-Fakten.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2024).
  28. van der Kruk, S.R.; Zielinski, R.; MacDougall, H.; Hughes-Barton, D.; Gunn, K.M. Virtual Reality as a Patient Education Tool in Healthcare: A Scoping Review. Patient Educ. Couns. 2022, 105, 1928–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Simón-Vicente, L.; Rodríguez-Cano, S.; Delgado-Benito, V.; Ausín-Villaverde, V.; Cubo Delgado, E. Cybersickness. A systematic literature review of adverse effects related to virtual reality. Neurologia 2024, 39, 701–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Estel, K.; Scherer, J.; Dahl, H.; Wolber, E.; Forsat, N.D.; Back, D.A. Potential of Digitalization within Physiotherapy: A Comparative Survey. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2022, 22, 496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Merolli, M.; Gray, K.; Choo, D.; Lawford, B.J.; Hinman, R.S. Use, and Acceptability, of Digital Health Technologies in Musculoskeletal Physical Therapy: A Survey of Physical Therapists and Patients. Musculoskelet. Care 2022, 20, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Lawford, B.J.; Delany, C.; Bennell, K.L.; Hinman, R.S. “I Was Really Sceptical... But It Worked Really Well”: A Qualitative Study of Patient Perceptions of Telephone-Delivered Exercise Therapy by Physiotherapists for People with Knee Osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2018, 26, 741–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Konttila, J.; Siira, H.; Kyngäs, H.; Lahtinen, M.; Elo, S.; Kääriäinen, M.; Kaakinen, P.; Oikarinen, A.; Yamakawa, M.; Fukui, S.; et al. Healthcare Professionals’ Competence in Digitalisation: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Nurs. 2019, 28, 745–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dejaco, B.; Brady, N.; Tankink, A.; Lewis, J.; van Goor, H.; Staal, J.B.; Stolwijk, N. Experiences of Physiotherapists Considering Virtual Reality for Shoulder Rehabilitation: A Focus Group Study. Digit. Health 2024, 10, 20552076241234738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Merolli, M.; Ahmed, O.; McCreesh, K.; Remedios, L.; Butler-Henderson, K. Are Physiotherapists Expected to Be Competent in Digital Health Practice? Meta-Synthesis of International Physiotherapy Practice Competency Standards. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2024, 40, 2988–2999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sauermann, S.; Herzberg, J.; Burkert, S.; Habetha, S. DiGA—A Chance for the German Healthcare System. J. Eur. CME 2022, 11, 2014047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Giebel, G.D.; Speckemeier, C.; Abels, C.; Plescher, F.; Börchers, K.; Wasem, J.; Blase, N.; Neusser, S. Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of Digital Health Applications: Scoping Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2023, 25, e43808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Verzeichnis/DiGA-Verzeichnis. Available online: https://diga.bfarm.de/de/verzeichnis (accessed on 4 November 2024).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participating physiotherapists.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participating physiotherapists.
Physiotherapists Using VRPhysiotherapists Not Using VRTotal Sample
N (%)8 (2.7)288 (97.3)296 (100)
Age, median (IQ)47 (36)46 (24)46 (25)
Gender, n (%)
Female4 (50)192 (66.7)196 (66.2)
Male3 (37.5)93 (32.3)96 (32.4)
Divers1 (12.5)1 (0.3)2 (0.7)
No information02 (0.7)2 (0.7)
Highest Degree, n (%)
Vocational certificate 1 (12.5)201 (69.8)202 (68.2)
Bachelor’s 4 (50)53 (18.4)57 (19.3)
Master’s1 (12.5)12 (4.2)13 (4.4)
Doctoral1 (12.5)2 (0.7)3 (1.0)
Other1 (12.5)14 (4.9)15 (5.1)
No information06 (2.1)6 (2.0)
Professional experience, n (%)
0–4 years2 (25.0)41 (14.2)43 (14.5)
5–9 years3 (37.5)30 (10.4)33 (11.1)
10–14 years032 (11.1)32 (10.8)
15–19 years033 (11.5)33 (11.1)
20+ years2 (25.0)145 (50.3)147 (49.7)
No information1 (12.5)7 (2.4)8 (2.7)
Physiotherapists employed at the facility, n (%)
12 (25.0)29 (10.1)31 (10.5)
2–4075 (26.0)75 (25.3)
5–9072 (25.0)72 24.3
10–14035 (12.2)35 (11.8)
15–19019 (6.6)19 (6.4)
20–241 (12.5)6 (2.1)7 (2.4)
25–301 (12.5)8 (2.8)9 (3.0)
30+4 (50.0)39 (13.5)43 (14.5)
No information05 (1.7)5 (1.7)
Setting, n (%) 1
Outpatient practice3 (37.5)204 (70.8)207 (69.9)
Acute care clinic5 (62.5)52 (18.1)57 (19.3)
Inpatient rehabilitation2 (25.0)26 (9.0)28 (9.5)
Outpatient rehabilitation1 (12.5)5 (1.7)6 (2.0)
Other1 (12.5)19 (6.6)19 (6.4)
Specialization, n (%) 1
Musculoskeletal physiotherapy (orthopedics/manual therapy)4 (50)197 (68.4)201 (67.9)
Post-operative rehabilitation3 (37.5)114 (39.6)117 (39.5)
Pediatric physiotherapy043 (14.9)43 (14.5)
Neurological physiotherapy5 (62.5)114 (39.6)119 (40.2)
Sports physiotherapy1 (12.5)55 (19.1)56 (18.9)
Psychosomatic physiotherapy2 (25.0)19 (6.6)21 (7.1)
Geriatric physiotherapy2 (25.0)63 (21.9)65 (22.0)
Palliative care027 (9.4)27 (9.1)
Gynecology1 (12.5)32 (11.1)33 (11.1)
No specialization015 (5.2)15 (5.1)
Other030 (10.4)30 (10.1)
1 More than one option possible.
Table 2. Characteristics of therapeutic VR use (n = 8).
Table 2. Characteristics of therapeutic VR use (n = 8).
Age of Patient Receiving Therapeutic VR, n (%) 1
<18 years3 (37.5)
18–30 years2 (25)
31–50 years4 (50)
51–70 years4 (50)
>71 years1 (12.5)
Patient’s condition receiving therapeutic VR, n (%) 1
Neurological condition6 (75)
Musculoskeletal condition4 (50)
Chronic pain4 (50)
Medically unexplained symptoms3 (37.5)
Geriatrics3 (37.5)
Pediatrics1 (12.5)
Cardiopulmonary condition1 (12.5)
Oncological condition0
Other0
No information0
Proposed working mechanism VR, n (%) 1
Activation7 (87.5)
Relaxation5 (62.5)
Reducing fear of movement4 (50)
Education3 (37.5)
Other0
Treatment goal of therapeutic VR, n (%) 1
Improve coordination6 (75)
Improve physical mobility5 (62.5)
Improve strength5 (62.5)
Improve stability4 (50)
Reduce pain4 (50)
Improve endurance2 (25)
Other2 (25)
Overall experience with therapeutic VR
0 (extremely bad) to 10 (extremely good)6.43
1 More than one option possible.
Table 3. Previous use of therapeutic VR by physiotherapists (n = 17).
Table 3. Previous use of therapeutic VR by physiotherapists (n = 17).
Reasons for Quitting Therapeutic VR, n (%) 1
Costs7 (41.2)
Dissatisfied with the results5 (29.4)
Other reasons5 (29.4)
Negative experiences of patients2 (11.8)
Negative experiences of therapists0
No information4 (23.5)
Patient’s condition receiving therapeutic VR, n (%) 1
Neurological condition4 (23.5)
Musculoskeletal condition10 (58.8)
Chronic pain4 (23.5)
Medically unexplained symptoms1 (5.9)
Geriatrics0
Pediatrics0
Cardiopulmonary condition2 (11.8)
Oncological condition0
Other0
No information2 (11.8)
Consideration of future use of therapeutic VR, n (%)
Yes10 (58.8)
No3 (17.7)
Maybe3 (17.7)
No information1 (5.9)
1 More than one option possible.
Table 4. Future use of therapeutic VR by physiotherapists who have never used it before (n = 241).
Table 4. Future use of therapeutic VR by physiotherapists who have never used it before (n = 241).
Reasons Why Therapeutic VR Has Not Yet Been Used, n (%) 1
I have never heard anything about it before162 (67.2)
Other reasons43 (17.8)
I don’t treat suitable patients34 (14.1)
Costs26 (10.8)
No information11 (4.6)
What conditions could you imagine using therapeutic VR for? n, (%) 1
Neurological condition30 (12.4)
Musculoskeletal condition101 (41.9)
Chronic pain94 (39)
Medically unexplained symptoms35 (14.5)
Geriatrics50 (20.7)
Pediatrics46 (19.1)
Cardiopulmonary condition30 (12.4)
Oncological condition30 (12.4)
Other11 (4.6)
No information82 (34)
Consideration of future use of therapeutic VR, n (%)
Yes83 (34.4)
No44 (18.3)
Maybe100 (41.4)
No information14 (5.8)
1 More than one option possible.
Table 5. Comparison of the use of therapeutic VR by physiotherapists between Germany and the Netherlands [19].
Table 5. Comparison of the use of therapeutic VR by physiotherapists between Germany and the Netherlands [19].
Physiotherapists Using VRPhysiotherapists Not Using VRTotal
Germany, n (%)8 (2.7)288 (97.3)296
Netherlands, n (%)18 (7.3)227 (92.7)345
Total, n (%)26 (5.0)515 (95)541
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Elser, A.; Ohse, M.; Frankenstein, C.; Leeuw, M.; Schiebler, S.; Schmieder, S.; Slatman, S.; Schäfer, A.G.M. Usage of Virtual Reality Technology in Physiotherapy in Germany: Results from a Survey. Bioengineering 2025, 12, 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020106

AMA Style

Elser A, Ohse M, Frankenstein C, Leeuw M, Schiebler S, Schmieder S, Slatman S, Schäfer AGM. Usage of Virtual Reality Technology in Physiotherapy in Germany: Results from a Survey. Bioengineering. 2025; 12(2):106. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020106

Chicago/Turabian Style

Elser, Alexander, Maybritt Ohse, Camilla Frankenstein, Madlin Leeuw, Sophie Schiebler, Sandra Schmieder, Syl Slatman, and Axel Georg Meender Schäfer. 2025. "Usage of Virtual Reality Technology in Physiotherapy in Germany: Results from a Survey" Bioengineering 12, no. 2: 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020106

APA Style

Elser, A., Ohse, M., Frankenstein, C., Leeuw, M., Schiebler, S., Schmieder, S., Slatman, S., & Schäfer, A. G. M. (2025). Usage of Virtual Reality Technology in Physiotherapy in Germany: Results from a Survey. Bioengineering, 12(2), 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020106

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop