Table 2.

Overview of study designs and settings.

Study	Study design	Setting	Sample size, n	Intervention duration
Tabak et al [8], 2014	Pilot RCTa	Hospital and primary care physiotherapy practices, Enschede, Netherlands	29	9 mo
Mazzoleni et al [14], 2014	RCT	Auxilium Vitae Rehabilitation Center, Volterra, Italy	40	3 wk
Kotrach et al [15], 2015	Pilot RCT	Mount Sinai Hospital, Montreal, Canada	12	3-6 h of individualized training, with follow-up at home
Hoaas et al [12], 2016	Mixed methods pilot study	Home-based with telemonitoring, Norway	10	2 y
LeGear et al [16], 2016	Randomized, within-participant crossover trial	St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, Canada	10	Single session with two 15-min exercise interventions
Liu et al [17], 2016	Cross-sectional observational study	CIRO, Horn, Netherlands	61	—b
Bamidis et al [18], 2017	Multilevel intervention project	EUc-funded multisite study	Data not explicitly provided (ongoing multicenter trials)	3 y
Burkow et al [19], 2018	Feasibility study	Virtual group-based home setting	10	6 wk
De Las Heras et al [20], 2018	Qualitative study with focus groups and semistructured interviews	Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; and Oulu University Hospital, Finland	13	—
Parent et al [21], 2018	Pilot feasibility study	Supervised hospital setting in Montreal, Canada	14	Single 30-min session
Rutkowski et al [22], 2019	RCT	Hospital-based pulmonary rehabilitation (stationary)	68	14 d
Sutanto et al [23], 2019	RCT	Outpatient clinic in Dr Moewardi Hospital, Surakarta, Indonesia	23	6 wk
Jung et al [13], 2020	Mixed methods study	Home-based rehabilitation, South and West Cumbria, United Kingdom	10	8 wk
Rutkowski et al [11], 2020	RCT	Specialist hospital in Głuchołazy, Poland	106	2 wk
Tu et al [24], 2020	Pilot feasibility study	Home-based (in-laboratory demonstration using smartwatch, smartphone, and VRd headset)	Proof-of-concept demonstration; no specific patient sample size indicated	Demonstration sessions lasted 2-5 min
Rutkowski et al [9], 2021	RCT	Specialist hospital in Głuchołazy, Poland	50	2 wk (10 VR sessions)
Simmich et al [25], 2021	Qualitative study with semistructured interviews	Pulmonary support groups in Brisbane, Australia	19	NR (single interview session per participant)
Simmich et al [26], 2021	Pilot RCT	Home-based intervention, Brisbane, Australia	18	3 wk
Baxter et al [27], 2022	Mixed methods randomized usability study	Urban locations in southeast Queensland, Australia	24	Single session (3 inspirations using each device)
Oberschmidt et al [28], 2022	Qualitative study using interviews	Physiotherapy office in the Netherlands	7	6 mo
Finkelstein et al [29], 2023	Mixed methods randomized usability study	Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States	9	Single session of using the VR app
Gabriel et al [30], 2023	Mixed methods quantitative and qualitative assessments	Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States	18	Single session using the VR app
Gabriel et al [31], 2023	Qualitative study with semistructured interviews	Home-based, conducted virtually	9	Single session
Pancini et al [32], 2023	RCT	IRCCS INRCA, Italy	Not reported (study is in planning phase)	2 wk (four 20-min sessions)
Pardos et al [33], 2023	Methodology and pilot design	Remote care platforms for chronic disease management	Pilot system; no specific patient sample provided	—
Colombo et al [34], 2024	Single-group pilot study	In-hospital rehabilitation program, Italy	14	2 wk, with 20-min sessions, twice daily
Jin et al [35], 2024	RCT	The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, China	80	6 wk
Kizmaz et al [36], 2024	RCT	Hospitalized patients at Pamukkale University Health Research and Application Centre, Turkey	50	Until discharge from hospital
McAnirlin et al [10], 2024	Proof of concept, mixed methods	Participants’ homes in upstate South Carolina, United States	4	4 mo

^aRCT: randomized controlled trial.

^bNot applicable.

^cEU: European Union.

^dVR: virtual reality.