Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
The aim of this study is to explore the differential efficacy of in vivo exposure versus augmented reality exposure in the treatment of specific phobia (small animals).
The hypothesis is: There will not be significant statistical differences in the efficacy of in vivo exposure therapy versus augmented reality exposure in the treatment of specific phobia (small animals).
Full description
Among anxiety disorders, specific phobias are highly prevalent (around 7.2% and 11.3% in the general population). Cockroach or spider phobia is a type of specific phobia, animal type. The gold standard for the treatment of specific phobia (included small animal phobia) is in vivo exposure. Most phobia sufferers (60-80%) never seek treatment. Besides, not all patients benefit from in vivo exposure, given that an important amount of them do not accept the intervention or drop out (around 25%) when they are informed about the intervention procedure.
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) like Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) are pioneer applications that can improve treatment adherence and acceptance. There exist some studies offering preliminary evidence of the efficacy of AR for the treatment of small animal phobia. However, there are not any controlled study exploring the differential efficacy of ICT-based exposure interventions versus in vivo exposure. In the present study the differential efficacy of AR exposure versus in vivo exposure for the treatment of small animal phobia is explored with a between subject randomized controlled trial. A pre-treatment assessment will be conducted in order to establish the diagnosis and evaluate the main outcome measures. All participants will receive an intensive exposure session following Öst guidelines, (in vivo exposure in one experimental condition and AR exposure in the other experimental condition). After the treatment a post-treatment assessment will be carried out as well as follow-up assessments at 3- and 12-month after treatment completion.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
60 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal