Abstract
Background
Virtual reality (VR) use in brain injury rehabilitation is emerging. Recommendations for VR development in this field encourage end user engagement to determine the benefits and challenges of VR use; however, existing literature on this topic is limited. Data from social networking sites such as Twitter may further inform development and clinical practice related to the use of VR in brain injury rehabilitation.
Objective
This study collected and analyzed VR-related tweets to (1) explore the VR tweeting community to determine topics of conversation and network connections, (2) understand user opinions and experiences of VR, and (3) identify tweets related to VR use in health care and brain injury rehabilitation.
Methods
Publicly available tweets containing the hashtags #virtualreality and #VR were collected up to twice weekly during a 6-week period from July 2020 to August 2020 using NCapture (QSR International). The included tweets were analyzed using mixed methods. All tweets were coded using inductive content analysis. Relevant tweets (ie, coded as “VR in health care” or “talking about VR”) were further analyzed using Dann’s content coding. The biographies of users who sent relevant tweets were examined descriptively. Tweet data networks were visualized using Gephi computational analysis.
Results
A total of 260,715 tweets were collected, and 70,051 (26.87%) were analyzed following eligibility screening. The sample comprised 33.68% (23,596/70,051) original tweets and 66.32% (46,455/70,051) retweets. Content analysis generated 10 main categories of original tweets related to VR (ie, advertising and promotion, VR content, talking about VR, VR news, general technology, VR industry, VR live streams, VR in health care, VR events, and VR community). Approximately 4.48% (1056/23,596) of original tweets were related to VR use in health care, whereas 0.19% (45/23,596) referred to VR in brain injury rehabilitation. In total, 14.86% (3506/23,596) of original tweets featured commentary on user opinions and experiences of VR applications, equipment, and software. The VR tweeting community comprised a large network of 26,001 unique Twitter users. Users that posted tweets related to “VR in health care” (2124/26,001, 8.17%) did not form an interconnected VR network, whereas many users “talking about VR” (3752/26,001, 14.43%) were connected within a central network.
Conclusions
This study provides valuable data on community-based experiences and opinions related to VR. Tweets showcased various VR applications, including in health care, and identified important user-based considerations that can be used to inform VR use in brain injury rehabilitation (eg, technical design, accessibility, and VR sickness). Limited discussions and small user networks related to VR in brain injury rehabilitation reflect the paucity of literature on this topic and the potential underuse of this technology. These findings emphasize that further research is required to understand the specific needs and perspectives of people with brain injuries and clinicians regarding VR use in rehabilitation.