Health Care Workers’ Perspectives on Virtual Reality in Mental Health: Qualitative Interview Study

Abstract Background Virtual reality (VR) offers immersive, interactive environments, with growing evidence supporting its use in mental health diagnostics and therapy. Despite the increasing availability of VR equipment in clinical settings, integration into routine mental health care remains limited. Understanding health care workers’ attitudes, knowledge, and perceived barriers is essential for bridging the gap between technological availability and clinical implementation. Objective This study aimed to investigate health care workers’ attitudes toward VR in mental health treatment and identify factors influencing its adoption in settings where VR equipment is already available. Methods A qualitative study design was used, combining structured one-to-one interviews with a supporting narrative literature review. The narrative review informed the interview design and contextualized findings within the existing evidence base. Structured interviews were conducted with 16 mental health professionals (n=12, 75% women; n=4, 25% men) working in psychiatric and mental health settings in one city in southern Poland where VR equipment was available for patient care. Descriptive statistics summarized closed-ended question responses, and thematic analysis was applied to open-ended questions. Results Of the 16 participants, 10 (62.5%) had heard of VR technology before and held a favourable view of it, but only 6 (37.5%) were aware of its applications in mental health care. Participants aged under 35 years (6/16) rated the value of VR in therapy more positively than those aged over 50 years (3/16). Among those with prior VR exposure, 85.7% (6/7) expressed confidence in its effectiveness compared with 44.4% (4/9) of those without prior exposure. The most frequently mentioned benefits included interactivity, the ability to individualize therapeutic activities to patient needs, isolated visual and auditory interactions, and an increased sense of patient involvement and control. High costs were identified as the primary barrier by 75% (12/16), and 68.8% (11/16) expressed a need for comprehensive training. Women rated their subjective VR knowledge lower than men despite demonstrating comparable objective knowledge during interviews. VR equipment was described as being restricted within certain service areas. Legal and insurance constraints limited the use of home-based VR. Conclusions Access to VR equipment alone is insufficient to drive adoption in mental health services. Effective integration requires targeted education, comprehensive training, clear institutional guidelines on equipment responsibility and insurance, and supportive infrastructure. Addressing barriers and knowledge gaps identified in this study is essential for realizing VR’s therapeutic potential in routine clinical practice.