Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Apr 30:27:e62649.
doi: 10.2196/62649.

The Influence of Previous Experience on Virtual Reality Adoption in Medical Rehabilitation and Overcoming Knowledge Gaps Among Health Care Professionals: Qualitative Interview Study

Melina Schreiter  1   2 , Jasmin Hennrich  1   2 , Anna Lina Wolf  1   2 , Torsten Eymann  1   2   3
Affiliations

The Influence of Previous Experience on Virtual Reality Adoption in Medical Rehabilitation and Overcoming Knowledge Gaps Among Health Care Professionals: Qualitative Interview Study

Melina Schreiter et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Virtual reality (VR) technologies in health care, particularly in medical rehabilitation, have demonstrated effectiveness by enabling patient remobilization in virtual environments, offering real-time feedback, enhancing physical function and quality of life, and allowing patients to exercise autonomously. Nevertheless, VR technologies are facing slow adoption in routine rehabilitative practice due to health care professionals' concerns regarding data security, lack of time, or perceived cost.

Objective: This study aimed to explore how previous experience with VR technologies influences health care professionals' decisions to adopt or reject these technologies in medical rehabilitation.

Methods: We conducted 23 semistructured interviews with health care professionals from different rehabilitative fields in Germany, whom we grouped into VR-experienced "innovators" and nonexperienced "laggards" according to their level of innovativeness. When analyzing the interviews, we applied qualitative content analysis techniques and derived 56 preliminary categories from the transcripts.

Results: We merged the preliminary categories into 26 adoption and rejection factors, which were grouped under the 4 overarching categories of the diffusion of innovation theory by Rogers. In addition to the pure identification of context-specific influencing factors, we were able to identify differences between these factors concerning the two different adopter groups. VR-experienced innovators exhibited key characteristics such as openness to new technologies, solution-oriented thinking, and opinion leadership, whereas nonexperienced laggards focused on barriers and relied on top-down knowledge transfer. Despite these differences, both groups agreed on the factors that promote the adoption of VR technologies. Our results indicate that addressing the unique needs of both groups is crucial for wider VR acceptance in health care.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between VR-experienced and nonexperienced health care professionals, providing actionable insights for developing adopter-specific communication strategies to overcome barriers and foster broader diffusion of VR technologies in the health care sector.

Keywords: adoption decision process; health care professionals; medical rehabilitation; previous experience; qualitative content analysis; technology adoption; virtual reality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Prior conditions, knowledge stage, and persuasion stage within the adoption decision process (Rogers [25]).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Contributing factors to resistance to and adoption of virtual reality (VR) technologies in medical rehabilitation. *Variations between VR-experienced innovators and nonexperienced laggards. A: adoption; HC: health care; R: resistance.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Shiner CT, Croker G, McGhee J, Faux SG. Perspectives on the use of virtual reality within a public hospital setting: surveying knowledge, attitudes, and perceived utility among health care professionals. BMC Digit Health. 2024 Apr 25;2:18. doi: 10.1186/s44247-024-00076-x. - DOI
    1. Keshner EA, Weiss PT, Geifman D, Raban D. Tracking the evolution of virtual reality applications to rehabilitation as a field of study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Jun 21;16(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12984-019-0552-6.10.1186/s12984-019-0552-6 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pawassar CM, Tiberius V. Virtual reality in health care: bibliometric analysis. JMIR Serious Games. 2021 Dec 01;9(4):e32721. doi: 10.2196/32721. https://games.jmir.org/2021/4/e32721/ v9i4e32721 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Matamala-Gomez M, Bottiroli S, Realdon O, Riva G, Galvagni L, Platz T, Sandrini G, De Icco R, Tassorelli C. Telemedicine and virtual reality at time of COVID-19 pandemic: an overview for future perspectives in neurorehabilitation. Front Neurol. 2021 Mar 25;12:646902. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.646902. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/33841313 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tang YM, Ng GW, Chia NH, So EH, Wu CH, Ip WH. Application of virtual reality (VR) technology for medical practitioners in type and screen (T and S) training. Comput Assist Learn. 2020 Oct 04;37(2):359–69. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12494. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources