Purpose: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has long been recognized as an effective treatment for depression and suicidality.Virtual reality (VR) technology is widely used for cognitive training for conditions such as anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, but little research has considered VR-based CBT for depressive symptoms and suicidality. We tested the effectiveness and safety of a VR-based CBT program for depressive disorders. Materials and Methods: We recruited 57 participants from May 2022 through February 2023 using online advertisements. This multi-center, assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled exploratory trial used two groups: VR treatment group and treat as usual (TAU) group. VR treatment group received a VR mental health training/education program. TAU group received standard pharmacotherapy. Assessments were conducted at baseline, immediately after the 6-week treatment period, and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment period in each group. Results: Depression scores decreased significantly over time in both VR treatment and TAU groups, with no differences between the two groups. The suicidality score decreased significantly only in VR group. No group differences were found in the remission or response rate for depression, perceived stress, or clinical severity. No adverse events or motion sickness occurred during the VR treatment program. Conclusion VR CBT treatment for major depressive disorder has the potential to be equivalent to the gold-standard pharmacotherapy in reducing depressive symptoms, suicidality, and related clinical symptoms, with no difference in improvement found in this study. Thus, VR-based CBT might be an effective alternative to pharmacotherapy for depressive disorders.

Purpose: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has long been recognized as an effective treatment for depression and suicidality.Virtual reality (VR) technology is widely used for cognitive training for conditions such as anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, but little research has considered VR-based CBT for depressive symptoms and suicidality. We tested the effectiveness and safety of a VR-based CBT program for depressive disorders. Materials and Methods: We recruited 57 participants from May 2022 through February 2023 using online advertisements. This multi-center, assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled exploratory trial used two groups: VR treatment group and treat as usual (TAU) group. VR treatment group received a VR mental health training/education program. TAU group received standard pharmacotherapy. Assessments were conducted at baseline, immediately after the 6-week treatment period, and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment period in each group. Results: Depression scores decreased significantly over time in both VR treatment and TAU groups, with no differences between the two groups. The suicidality score decreased significantly only in VR group. No group differences were found in the remission or response rate for depression, perceived stress, or clinical severity. No adverse events or motion sickness occurred during the VR treatment program. Conclusion VR CBT treatment for major depressive disorder has the potential to be equivalent to the gold-standard pharmacotherapy in reducing depressive symptoms, suicidality, and related clinical symptoms, with no difference in improvement found in this study. Thus, VR-based CBT might be an effective alternative to pharmacotherapy for depressive disorders.

Purpose: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has long been recognized as an effective treatment for depression and suicidality.Virtual reality (VR) technology is widely used for cognitive training for conditions such as anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, but little research has considered VR-based CBT for depressive symptoms and suicidality. We tested the effectiveness and safety of a VR-based CBT program for depressive disorders. Materials and Methods: We recruited 57 participants from May 2022 through February 2023 using online advertisements. This multi-center, assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled exploratory trial used two groups: VR treatment group and treat as usual (TAU) group. VR treatment group received a VR mental health training/education program. TAU group received standard pharmacotherapy. Assessments were conducted at baseline, immediately after the 6-week treatment period, and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment period in each group. Results: Depression scores decreased significantly over time in both VR treatment and TAU groups, with no differences between the two groups. The suicidality score decreased significantly only in VR group. No group differences were found in the remission or response rate for depression, perceived stress, or clinical severity. No adverse events or motion sickness occurred during the VR treatment program. Conclusion VR CBT treatment for major depressive disorder has the potential to be equivalent to the gold-standard pharmacotherapy in reducing depressive symptoms, suicidality, and related clinical symptoms, with no difference in improvement found in this study. Thus, VR-based CBT might be an effective alternative to pharmacotherapy for depressive disorders.

Purpose: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has long been recognized as an effective treatment for depression and suicidality.Virtual reality (VR) technology is widely used for cognitive training for conditions such as anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, but little research has considered VR-based CBT for depressive symptoms and suicidality. We tested the effectiveness and safety of a VR-based CBT program for depressive disorders. Materials and Methods: We recruited 57 participants from May 2022 through February 2023 using online advertisements. This multi-center, assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled exploratory trial used two groups: VR treatment group and treat as usual (TAU) group. VR treatment group received a VR mental health training/education program. TAU group received standard pharmacotherapy. Assessments were conducted at baseline, immediately after the 6-week treatment period, and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment period in each group. Results: Depression scores decreased significantly over time in both VR treatment and TAU groups, with no differences between the two groups. The suicidality score decreased significantly only in VR group. No group differences were found in the remission or response rate for depression, perceived stress, or clinical severity. No adverse events or motion sickness occurred during the VR treatment program. Conclusion VR CBT treatment for major depressive disorder has the potential to be equivalent to the gold-standard pharmacotherapy in reducing depressive symptoms, suicidality, and related clinical symptoms, with no difference in improvement found in this study. Thus, VR-based CBT might be an effective alternative to pharmacotherapy for depressive disorders.

Purpose: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has long been recognized as an effective treatment for depression and suicidality.Virtual reality (VR) technology is widely used for cognitive training for conditions such as anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, but little research has considered VR-based CBT for depressive symptoms and suicidality. We tested the effectiveness and safety of a VR-based CBT program for depressive disorders. Materials and Methods: We recruited 57 participants from May 2022 through February 2023 using online advertisements. This multi-center, assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled exploratory trial used two groups: VR treatment group and treat as usual (TAU) group. VR treatment group received a VR mental health training/education program. TAU group received standard pharmacotherapy. Assessments were conducted at baseline, immediately after the 6-week treatment period, and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment period in each group. Results: Depression scores decreased significantly over time in both VR treatment and TAU groups, with no differences between the two groups. The suicidality score decreased significantly only in VR group. No group differences were found in the remission or response rate for depression, perceived stress, or clinical severity. No adverse events or motion sickness occurred during the VR treatment program. Conclusion VR CBT treatment for major depressive disorder has the potential to be equivalent to the gold-standard pharmacotherapy in reducing depressive symptoms, suicidality, and related clinical symptoms, with no difference in improvement found in this study. Thus, VR-based CBT might be an effective alternative to pharmacotherapy for depressive disorders.

Purpose: To evaluate patient‐reported experiences of 3 primary treatments for localized or locally advanced prostate cancer—radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation therapy (RT), and active surveillance (AS)—based on cross‐sectional data from a prospective registry, and to explore how these findings can inform a structured shared decision making (SDM) framework. Materials and Methods: Men with clinical stage cT3aN0M0 or lower were enrolled. Those who underwent RP or RT were surveyed 6–24 months posttreatment; men on AS had 6–60 months of follow‐up. All participants completed the EORTC QLQ‐PR25 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Prostate Cancer Module), capturing urinary, bowel, hormonal, and sexual function. The Kruskal‐Wallis test evaluated group differences, with significance set at p<0.05. Results: Among 542 patients, 435 underwent RP, 73 received RT (43% with androgen deprivation therapy), and 34 were on AS. RP patients reported higher rates of urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction, whereas RT patients had more severe urinary irritative and bowel symptoms. AS generally preserved baseline sexual function but still involved some urinary complaints and anxiety regarding disease progression. These findings underscore the distinct trade‐offs among the 3 management strategies, emphasizing the importance of individualized SDM that accounts for functional priorities and patient values. Conclusion Each treatment modality poses unique impacts on quality of life. Incorporating these patient‐reported data into SDM discussions can improve alignment between clinical recommendations and patient preferences, potentially reducing decisional regret and enhancing long‐term outcomes.

Background: This study aimed to develop an instrument for assessing physical functioning among adults aged 50 years or older living in the community. Methods: Based on a review of various national health surveys and cohort studies, a 144-item bank was constructed for assessing physical functioning. Focus group interviews were conducted among adults aged 50 years or older to investigate their level of understanding of 60 selected items, followed by a pretest of the items on a nationally representative sample (n=508). The final 25-item questionnaire was tested on an independent sample (n=259) for validity and reliability based on classical test and item response theories. Predictive validity at the 6-month follow-up was tested in a separate sample (n=263). Results: The newly developed Life Functioning (LF) scale assessed the dimensions of functional limitations, disabilities, and social activities. The scale satisfied a one-dimensionality assumption with good item fit and demonstrated criterion validity, construct validity, high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.93), and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient=0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.76–0.89). The LF scale comprised 25 items with a total score ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicated higher levels of functioning. The LF score was significantly associated with the Physical Functioning score at 6 months. Conclusion The LF scale was developed to assess the physical functioning of people in their late midlife or older. Future studies should test the instrument on a national sample and evaluate its application in diverse population subgroups.

Background: This study aimed to develop an instrument for assessing physical functioning among adults aged 50 years or older living in the community. Methods: Based on a review of various national health surveys and cohort studies, a 144-item bank was constructed for assessing physical functioning. Focus group interviews were conducted among adults aged 50 years or older to investigate their level of understanding of 60 selected items, followed by a pretest of the items on a nationally representative sample (n=508). The final 25-item questionnaire was tested on an independent sample (n=259) for validity and reliability based on classical test and item response theories. Predictive validity at the 6-month follow-up was tested in a separate sample (n=263). Results: The newly developed Life Functioning (LF) scale assessed the dimensions of functional limitations, disabilities, and social activities. The scale satisfied a one-dimensionality assumption with good item fit and demonstrated criterion validity, construct validity, high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.93), and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient=0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.76–0.89). The LF scale comprised 25 items with a total score ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicated higher levels of functioning. The LF score was significantly associated with the Physical Functioning score at 6 months. Conclusion The LF scale was developed to assess the physical functioning of people in their late midlife or older. Future studies should test the instrument on a national sample and evaluate its application in diverse population subgroups.

Background: This study aimed to develop an instrument for assessing physical functioning among adults aged 50 years or older living in the community. Methods: Based on a review of various national health surveys and cohort studies, a 144-item bank was constructed for assessing physical functioning. Focus group interviews were conducted among adults aged 50 years or older to investigate their level of understanding of 60 selected items, followed by a pretest of the items on a nationally representative sample (n=508). The final 25-item questionnaire was tested on an independent sample (n=259) for validity and reliability based on classical test and item response theories. Predictive validity at the 6-month follow-up was tested in a separate sample (n=263). Results: The newly developed Life Functioning (LF) scale assessed the dimensions of functional limitations, disabilities, and social activities. The scale satisfied a one-dimensionality assumption with good item fit and demonstrated criterion validity, construct validity, high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.93), and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient=0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.76–0.89). The LF scale comprised 25 items with a total score ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicated higher levels of functioning. The LF score was significantly associated with the Physical Functioning score at 6 months. Conclusion The LF scale was developed to assess the physical functioning of people in their late midlife or older. Future studies should test the instrument on a national sample and evaluate its application in diverse population subgroups.

Objective: This study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of Minds.NAVI, a depression screening kit combining psychometric measures and stress hormone biomarkers, in a prospective clinical trial. The objective was to assess its potential as a depression screening tool and investigate the associations between psychological assessments, salivary hormone staging, and depression severity. Methods: Thirty-five participants with major depressive disorder and 12 healthy controls (HCs) were included. The Minds.NAVI software, utilizing the PROtective and Vulnerable factors battEry Test (PROVE) and salivary cortisol/dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) analysis, was employed. The PROVE test is a comprehensive self-report questionnaire that assesses depressive symptoms, suicide risk, attachment style, adverse childhood experiences, mentalization capacity, and resilience. In addition, salivary cortisol and DHEA levels were measured to evaluate the functional stage of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis. Results: Minds.NAVI exhibited 100% sensitivity, 91.7% specificity, and 97.9% accuracy in distinguishing depression from HCs within an exploratory small group. Salivary stress hormone phases showed changes with depression stage (p=0.030), and the proportion of patients with “adrenal exhaustion stage” was higher in the moderate/severe depression group (p=0.038). Protective/vulnerable factors differed significantly between controls and depressed groups (p<0.001). Cortisol awakening response inversely correlated with depressive symptom severity (r=-0.31, p=0.034). Conclusion This study suggested possible clinical effectiveness of Minds.NAVI, a depression screening tool that integrates psychometric measures and stress hormone biomarkers. The findings support the potential association between depression, chronic stress, and HPA axis hyporesponsiveness.