Front. Psychiatry Frontiers in Psychiatry Front. Psychiatry 1664-0640 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1358379 Psychiatry Correction Corrigendum: Acceptability, feasibility, and user satisfaction of a virtual reality relaxation intervention in a psychiatric outpatient setting during the COVID-19 pandemic Humbert Annika 1 * Kohls Elisabeth 1 2 Baldofski Sabrina 1 Epple Carola 3 Rummel-Kluge Christine 1 2 1Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany 2Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Leipzig University Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany 3Lab E GmbH, Esslingen, Germany

Edited and reviewed by: Heleen Riper, VU Amsterdam, Netherlands

 *Correspondence: Annika Humbert AG-E-Mentalhealth@medizin.uni-leipzig.de 04 01 2024 2023 14 1358379 19 12 2023 21 12 2023 Copyright © 2024 Humbert, Kohls, Baldofski, Epple and Rummel-Kluge. 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.

 A corrigendum on Acceptability, feasibility, and user satisfaction of a virtual reality relaxation intervention in a psychiatric outpatient setting during the COVID-19 pandemic by Humbert, A., Kohls, E., Baldofski, S., Epple, C., and Rummel-Kluge, C. (2023). Front. Psychiatry. 14:1271702. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1271702 virtual reality relaxation feasibility psychiatric outpatients mental section-at-acceptance Digital Mental Health

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.

Results of baseline (T0) and post-intervention (T5) assessments.

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

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.

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.

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.