Adaptive VR venipuncture study: evidence brief.

Study design

Randomized, single-site venipuncture comparison. Fifty participants; twenty-five per group. Group A received static VR. Group B received adaptive VR with sensor-enabled tactile feedback.

Principal findings

Mean post-procedure pain: 5.0 ± 2.6 for static VR and 1.8 ± 1.4 for adaptive VR with tactile feedback. Reported p < 0.001 and Cohen’s d ≈ 1.53.

Six of twenty-five in the adaptive group and none in the static group reported 0/10 pain. Eighty-four percent of the adaptive group rated the session “Very Effective,” versus thirty-six percent of the static group.

How to interpret the findings

The calculated sixty-four percent difference describes lower group mean pain relative to static VR. It is not the percentage of children helped or a before-and-after treatment effect.

The trial does not isolate the independent benefit of adaptation or tactile interaction. Findings should not be automatically extended to postoperative or other settings. Reuse preference was an acceptability observation; its reported between-group comparison was not statistically significant.

Source

Vijayaalayan and Wimalaratne, Springer Nature conference proceedings, 2026. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-032-10951-4_6.