Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR XR and Spatial Computing (JMXR)

Date Submitted: Mar 30, 2026
Date Accepted: Jun 23, 2026

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Patient Perception of the Use of the Apple Vision Pro Virtual Reality Headset in an Anesthesiology Informed Consent Process: Prospective Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial

Chriqui S, Ryan JF, Luu BK, Tran M, Fergerson B, You A, Dameff C, Suresh PJ, Tully JL

Patient Perception of the Use of the Apple Vision Pro Virtual Reality Headset in an Anesthesiology Informed Consent Process: Prospective Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial

JMIR XR Spatial Comput 2026;3:e95806

DOI: 10.2196/95806

PMID: 42499682

Patient Perception of the Use of the Apple Vision Pro Virtual Reality Headset in an Anesthesiology Informed Consent Process: A Prospective Crossover Control Trial

  • Sabrina Chriqui; 
  • John Francis Ryan; 
  • Bao Kien Luu; 
  • Minh Tran; 
  • Byron Fergerson; 
  • Alan You; 
  • Christian Dameff; 
  • Preetham John Suresh; 
  • Jeffrey Logan Tully

ABSTRACT

Background:

Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) have become mainstream commercial technologies, with AR integrating virtual elements into displays of reality and VR offering fully immersive computer-generated visual experiences. Healthcare researchers are exploring clinical applications of these technologies, but questions remain about patient perceptions of the integration of such tools in patient/physician communication workflows.

Objective:

This study obtained patients’ response to the use of an Apple Vision Pro (AVP) virtual reality headset by anesthesiologists during an informed consent discussion for sedation for endoscopic gastrointestinal (GI) procedures.

Methods:

This crossover-control trial involved 60 patients undergoing monitored anesthesia care sedation for GI procedures at the University of California, San Diego’s Hillcrest Medical Center and Jacobs Medical Center. An anesthesiologist conducted two encounters with each patient prior to their procedure, one while wearing an AVP and one without. Patients completed the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQ) and a custom survey after each encounter.

Results:

The majority of patients had no prior experience with AR/VR headsets (n=45). The anesthesiologist received significantly lower SCQ scores while wearing the AVP (p<0.003). Approximately half of the patients remained satisfied with their ability to make eye contact with the anesthesiologist and thought the portrayal of their eyes was realistic.

Conclusions:

This study examined the impact of physicians wearing the AVP during patient interactions, revealing a statistically significant reduction in patients’ perceived compassion from and connectedness to their anesthesiologist. This highlights the need for caution when integrating AR/VR technology into clinical practice as it may interfere with the patient-physician relationship. Careful evaluation of the potential effects on patients’ trust in their physician is essential before adopting AR/VR in healthcare settings.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Chriqui S, Ryan JF, Luu BK, Tran M, Fergerson B, You A, Dameff C, Suresh PJ, Tully JL

Patient Perception of the Use of the Apple Vision Pro Virtual Reality Headset in an Anesthesiology Informed Consent Process: Prospective Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial

JMIR XR Spatial Comput 2026;3:e95806

DOI: 10.2196/95806

PMID: 42499682

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.