A scoping review of virtual reality technology utilization in patients with colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) technology has shown promise in supporting colorectal cancer (CRC) patients throughout their care journey; however, the evidence concerning its specific applications, intervention characteristics, and clinical outcomes remains scattered. This scoping review aims to systematically map the application domains, intervention features, implementation effects, and current challenges of VR in CRC patients, thereby providing an evidence base for nursing practice and the development of personalised rehabilitation programmes. METHODS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodological framework for scoping reviews, we systematically searched eight databases (CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) from their inception to January 26, 2026. Original studies that applied VR technology to patients with colorectal cancer were included. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, and analysis. RESULTS: Seven studies published between 2021 and 2025, involving a total of 388 participants, were included: 4 randomised controlled trials, 2 pilot studies, and 1 mixed-methods study. VR applications covered preoperative education, postoperative rehabilitation, chemotherapy management, and palliative support. Intervention types included immersive relaxation/meditation training, VR health education, VR rehabilitation training (interactive exergaming), and multisensory VR simulation. Session durations ranged from 7 to 30 minutes, with frequencies from a single session to twice daily; most intervention periods were single-session or aligned with hospitalisation/chemotherapy cycles. Six studies reported that VR reduced anxiety or improved emotional state, four noted improvements in physiological parameters, and two reported enhanced comprehension of surgical procedures. No serious adverse events were documented; only three mild cases of motion sickness were reported among the 388 participants (0.77%), indicating a low overall incidence of VR-related discomfort. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that VR interventions may offer tentative indications of benefit in alleviating anxiety and improving mood among CRC patients. The available data also provide preliminary safety evidence, with only two mild motion sickness cases reported. However, given the limited and highly heterogeneous evidence base (n=7 studies; N=388 participants), these observations must be construed as strictly hypothesis‑generating rather than practice‑changing. Definitive conclusions regarding clinical efficacy and safety necessitate validation through large‑scale, adequately powered randomised controlled trials with standardised protocols.