Strategic Planning for Extended Reality Adoption in Healthcare: Mixed Methods Development of the MCDA-XR Framework
Date Submitted: Dec 17, 2025
Open Peer Review Period: Dec 17, 2025 - Feb 11, 2026
Background: Health services increasingly face decisions about how to integrate immersive technologies into routine practice. International guidance highlights the need for structured governance in digital health, yet extended reality (XR) initiatives are often launched through isolated pilots without a clear assessment of organisational readiness or implementation risk. Although factors influencing XR adoption are well documented, healthcare organisations and system-level decision makers still lack practical, governance-oriented tools to translate these determinants into structured strategic decisions made before implementation. Objective: To develop MCDA-XR, a strategic governance framework that translates behavioural, organisational, and technical implementation determinants into a structured decision-support process for healthcare organisations. Methods: The study followed a sequential mixed-methods design covering the first two phases of a three-stage framework development and validation project. Phase 1 (Identification) defined strategic criteria by integrating theoretical perspectives on organisational complexity, behaviour change, technology acceptance, and immersive safety, together with a targeted review of XR implementation evidence. Phase 2 (Construction) refined the framework through participatory sessions. A multidisciplinary group of 33 stakeholders, including professionals and managers from hospital and primary care settings and postgraduate students, evaluated the proposed criteria for strategic relevance and operational clarity. This process resulted in a final ten-criterion structure and the establishment of a dual-score assessment logic. Phase 3 (Validation), planned as a subsequent step, will examine the predictive value of the framework in longitudinal clinical settings. Results: The development process yielded a framework comprising ten operational criteria grouped into three conceptual domains (Human, Organisational, and Technical). Stakeholder ratings indicated high strategic relevance across all criteria (mean scores above 4.0 on a 5-point scale), with Safety and Comfort receiving the highest prioritisation (mean 4.6). The final instrument applies a dual-assessment approach in which each criterion is rated separately for Strategic Importance and Organisational Readiness. Mapping these dimensions enables organisations to identify priority gaps, particularly areas of high importance and low readiness, and to distinguish between manageable constraints and critical barriers requiring targeted preparatory action prior to implementation. Conclusions: MCDA-XR addresses a key governance gap in XR implementation by providing a structured way to align adoption decisions with institutional priorities and operational constraints. Rather than relying on descriptive feasibility assessments, the framework supports explicit prioritisation and action-oriented decision making at the organisational level. MCDA-XR is positioned for Phase 3 evaluation, which will examine whether its readiness profiles anticipate implementation challenges and early sustainability outcomes in real-world clinical deployments.
