The metaverse is a vision of a future when technology becomes radically human-centered. The collective goal is a seamless, shared, and secure digital landscape everyone can access for play, work, and health care. While often associated with video games and social media, researchers increasingly predict the metaverse will use immersive environments where users interact through avatars, digital objects, and, increasingly, artificial intelligence (AI). However, with these new opportunities and innovations comes growing clinical uncertainty.
Unlike traditional telehealth with voice and video conferencing, health care in metaverse environments is likely to emphasize immersive experiences with technologies like virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), embodied AI, blockchain-based identity management, and a decentralized digital infrastructure. Medical metaverse research commonly aims to simulate presence, embodiment, and spatial interaction to provide an unprecedented level of adaptive and personalized patient care.
A recent study published in Frontiers in Virtual Reality examined how leading experts conceptualize the metaverse’s role in behavioral health care. The findings offer a structured look at areas of consensus, uncertainty and emerging clinical responsibility.
Study Overview: Building Consensus in an Emerging Field
Dr. Sophie Gloekler and colleagues conducted a Delphi study with a panel of 14 established international experts. The panelists were clinical researchers and industry professionals in mental health-related metaverse innovation, and were asked to evaluate a series of statements regarding:
The definition of the metaverse.
Its potential applications in behavioral health care.
Required safeguards and ethical guardrails.
Research priorities and unknowns.
Consensus was achieved after three rounds of iterative review and refinement.
Panelists agreed that the metaverse is likely to be:
Decentralized, without a single geographic location or governing owner.
Immersive and interactive, often experienced from a first-person perspective in 3D space.
Connected, with synchronous social interaction and sometimes interaction with the physical world.
Commercially active, supporting economic exchange and business activity.
Importantly, experts emphasized that accessibility is foundational to the metaverse’s social and economic viability. While a fully decentralized metaverse has not yet emerged, platforms such as Second Life, Roblox and VRChat have served as proof of concept. These “do anything, go anywhere, together” social games work on most devices, are often free to play, and host large global user bases.
Some clinicians have already experimented with these for structured therapy (e.g., social anxiety exposure work), family therapy, peer support communities and self-guided mental health engagement. With tens of millions of concurrent users across platforms, it is increasingly plausible that patients are independently engaging in immersive digital spaces as part of their coping or social support strategies.
This raises a practical question for telehealth providers: Should clinicians understand these environments and consider integrating them into care today?
Consensus on Clinical Safeguards
The experts agreed that the metaverse presents significant potential for expanding access and engagement in behavioral health care. However, they emphasized that therapeutic use requires explicit safeguards:
Behavioral health spaces should be clearly distinguished from nonclinical environments.
Clients and clinicians must inform design and governance.
User activity should be secure, confidential, and with consent.
AI systems must be clearly disclosed.
Certain services should only be delivered by a human health care provider.
Metaverse-based care should integrate with in-person care when appropriate.
Environments must be actively monitored for harassment and safety.
Clinicians should develop best-practice guidelines.
These recommendations reflect growing concern that interactions in immersive environments may blur boundaries between formal therapy and commercial or social activity, particularly those incorporating embodied AI.
Several AI-driven behavioral health tools already exist, including embodied chatbot platforms such as XAIA, Woebot, and Wysa. While these AI agents are supported by peer-reviewed evidence, debate continues regarding the scope of use, transparency, and patient safety.
Areas of Uncertainty and Research Gaps
The panel identified multiple unresolved questions:
Which patient populations benefit most (or least) from metaverse care?
How should clinicians and patients be prepared for metaverse-based therapy?
How much can immersive environments improve outcomes?
Is metaverse care cost-effective compared with in-person or traditional telehealth?
How should crisis management be handled in virtual spaces?
How can risks of technology overuse or dependency be mitigated?
These uncertainties reflect the perspective that the metaverse is undergoing active development.
Analysis: Why This Matters for Telehealth Policy
The study’s findings suggest that behavioral health professionals face a narrowing window to influence technological development. As commercial entities design immersive ecosystems, failure to incorporate clinical expertise could result in technologies misaligned with therapeutic needs.
From a telehealth policy perspective, several issues merit attention:
Interoperability. How will immersive environments integrate with in-person care, electronic health records, and telehealth systems?
Licensure and jurisdiction. How will cross-state or international care operate in decentralized spaces?
Data governance. Who owns behavioral and biometric data generated in immersive therapy?
Equity. Will hardware required to access care in the metaverse create new digital divides?
Without early engagement, telehealth providers may need to adapt to immersive health infrastructures rather than actively shaping it.
Limitations of the Study
These consensus statements reflect the opinions and perspectives of the 14 panelists. The panel size was relatively small, and panelists were already engaged in metaverse-related research, potentially introducing bias. The study does not establish clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, or patient satisfaction outcomes.
Conclusion
The metaverse represents a developing technological ecosystem with the potential to shape the future of virtual care, especially for mental and behavioral health.
Expert consensus suggests a strong opportunity, provided that clinical safeguards, transparency, and patient-centered design remain central.
For telehealth providers, the immediate task may not be adoption but informed engagement.
Disclosures:
The author served as a peer reviewer of the Frontiers in Virtual Reality publication discussed in the article.
This article references consumer health technologies for educational purposes. No endorsement of specific products is intended.
AI tools may have assisted in drafting or editing; the author or editorial team reviewed and approved all content.