In the published article, there was an error in Table 3 as published. Under the Intention-to-treat section there are missing the four scores of quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF scores) at T0. The corrected Table 3 and its caption appear below.
Table 3
| Variable | T0 (n = 40) | T5 (n = 36) | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intention-to-treat ( N = 40) | |||
| Depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores) | |||
| Minimal: 0–4, n (%) | 1 (2.5) | 3 (8.3) | |
| Mild: 5–9, n (%) | 10 (25.0) | 13 (36.1) | |
| Moderate: 10–14, n (%) | 8 (20.0) | 10 (27.8) | |
| Moderately severe: 15–19, n (%) | 15 (37.5) | 7 (19.4) | |
| Severe: 20–27, n (%) | 6 (15.0) | 3 (8.3) | |
| Sum score, M (SD) | 14.13 (6.18) | 10.86 (5.32) | < 0.001 |
| Quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF scores) | |||
| Physical, M (SD) | 52.58 (19.32) | 56.05 (18.05) | 0.079 |
| Psychological, M (SD) | 41.44 (19.47) | 47.69 (19.40) | 0.005 |
| Social, M (SD) | 53.70 (17.64) | 56.94 (18.31) | 0.217 |
| Environmental, M (SD) | 68.32 (14.35) | 69.44 (16.13) | 0.432 |
| Credibility and expectancy (CEQ score) | |||
| Credibility factor, M (SD) | 19.90 (4.09) | 18.48 (5.40) | .158 |
| Expectancy factor, M (SD) | 12.93 (3.33) | 11.03 (6.10) | .022 |
| T0 ( n = 29) | T5 ( n = 29) | p | |
| Per-protocol ( N = 29) | |||
| Depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores) | |||
| Minimal: 0–4, n (%) | 1 (3.4) | 3 (10.3) | |
| Mild: 5–9, n (%) | 6 (20.7) | 10 (34.5) | |
| Moderate: 10–14, n (%) | 8 (27.6) | 9 (31.0) | |
| Moderately severe: 15–19, n (%) | 10 (34.5) | 5 (17.2) | |
| Severe: 20–27, n (%) | 4 (13.8) | 2 (69.0) | |
| Sum score, M (SD) | 14.03 (6.12) | 10.48 (5.12) | < 0.001 |
| Quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF scores) | |||
| Physical, M (SD) | 52.46 (19.04) | 57.27 (17.74) | 0.038 |
| Psychological, M (SD) | 42.67 (18.92) | 50.29 (3.45) | 0.002 |
| Social, M (SD) | 55.17 (17.74) | 59.47 (18.99) | 0.168 |
| Environmental, M (SD) | 68.43 (2.63) | 69.50 (2.95) | 0.537 |
| Credibility and expectancy (CEQ score) | |||
| Credibility factor, M (SD) | 19.62 (3.96) | 19.52 (4.87) | 0.898 |
| Expectancy factor, M (SD) | 13.35 (3.33) | 12.35 (6.00) | 0.260 |
Results of baseline (T0) and post-intervention (T5) assessments.
Calculation of % from valid cases.
In the published article, there was an error in the text. There were two sentences in the article in which numbers were falsely formatted as references.
First, a correction has been made to the section 2. Materials and methods, 2.5. Measures, 2.5.5. Depressive symptoms. This sentence previously stated:
“In addition, sum scores were classified to represent different levels of severity of depressive symptoms from minimal (0–4), mild (5–9), moderate (10–14), moderately severe (15–19) to severe (20–27, 47).”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“In addition, sum scores were classified to represent different levels of severity of depressive symptoms from minimal, 0 to 4, mild, 5 to 9, moderate, 10 to 14, moderately severe, 15 to 19, to severe, 20 to 27 (47).”
Second, a correction has been made to the section 3. Results, 3.5. Depressive symptoms and quality of life, paragraph 3. This sentence previously stated:
“However, social quality of life, z = 1.38, p = 0.168, r = 0.26 (small effect), and environmental quality of life, t (28) = −0.63, p = 0.537, dz = 0.12 (small effect), did not differ significantly between T0 and T5 in the PP analysis (see Table 3).”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“However, social quality of life, z = 1.38, p = 0.168, r = 0.26 (small effect), and environmental quality of life, t(28) = −0.63, p = 0.537, dz = 0.12 (small effect), did not differ significantly between T0 and T5 in the PP analysis (see Table 3).”
In the published article, there was an error in Figure 1 as published. The word “Recriutment” was corrected to “Recruitment”. The corrected Figure 1 and its caption appear below.
Figure 1
Flowchart of trial design.
The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Statements
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Summary
Keywords
virtual reality, relaxation, feasibility, psychiatric outpatients, mental
Citation
Humbert A, Kohls E, Baldofski S, Epple C and Rummel-Kluge C (2024) Corrigendum: Acceptability, feasibility, and user satisfaction of a virtual reality relaxation intervention in a psychiatric outpatient setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Psychiatry 14:1358379. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1358379
Received
19 December 2023
Accepted
21 December 2023
Published
04 January 2024
Volume
14 - 2023
Edited and reviewed by
Heleen Riper, VU Amsterdam, Netherlands
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Humbert, Kohls, Baldofski, Epple and Rummel-Kluge.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Annika Humbert AG-E-Mentalhealth@medizin.uni-leipzig.de
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.