Virtual reality as a teaching method for resuscitation training in undergraduate first year medical students: a randomized controlled trial

Issleib, Malte; Kromer, Alina; Pinnschmidt, Hans O.; Süss-Havemann, Christoph; Kubitz, Jens C.

doi:10.1186/s13049-021-00836-y

Cited by 39 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Approximately 66% (19/29) of studies used validated scales to assess the learning experience, namely, the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory [ 57 ], General Self-Efficacy Scale, Learner Satisfaction with Simulation Scale [ 36 ], and Diagnostic Thinking Inventory [ 51 ]. A full list of the validated scales used in the RCTs in this review is provided in Multimedia Appendix 2 [ 26 , 33 , 34 , 36 - 38 , 41 , 42 , 45 - 49 , 51 , 54 - 58 ]. Approximately 7% (2/29) of studies reported on behaviors as an outcome, and none of the studies reported patient or health care outcomes [ 51 , 56 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning Outcomes of Immersive Technologies in Health Care Student Education: Systematic Review of the Literature

Ryan¹,

Callaghan²,

Rafferty³

et al. 2022

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is a lack of evidence in the literature regarding the learning outcomes of immersive technologies as educational tools for teaching university-level health care students. Objective The aim of this review is to assess the learning outcomes of immersive technologies compared with traditional learning modalities with regard to knowledge and the participants’ learning experience in medical, midwifery, and nursing preclinical university education. Methods A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Randomized controlled trials comparing traditional learning methods with virtual, augmented, or mixed reality for the education of medicine, nursing, or midwifery students were evaluated. The identified studies were screened by 2 authors independently. Disagreements were discussed with a third reviewer. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) in April 2020. Results Of 15,627 studies, 29 (0.19%) randomized controlled trials (N=2722 students) were included and evaluated using the MERSQI tool. Knowledge gain was found to be equal when immersive technologies were compared with traditional learning modalities; however, the learning experience increased with immersive technologies. The mean MERSQI score was 12.64 (SD 1.6), the median was 12.50, and the mode was 13.50. Immersive technology was predominantly used to teach clinical skills (15/29, 52%), and virtual reality (22/29, 76%) was the most commonly used form of immersive technology. Knowledge was the primary outcome in 97% (28/29) of studies. Approximately 66% (19/29) of studies used validated instruments and scales to assess secondary learning outcomes, including satisfaction, self-efficacy, engagement, and perceptions of the learning experience. Of the 29 studies, 19 (66%) included medical students (1706/2722, 62.67%), 8 (28%) included nursing students (727/2722, 26.71%), and 2 (7%) included both medical and nursing students (289/2722, 10.62%). There were no studies involving midwifery students. The studies were based on the following disciplines: anatomy, basic clinical skills and history-taking skills, neurology, respiratory medicine, acute medicine, dermatology, communication skills, internal medicine, and emergency medicine. Conclusions Virtual, augmented, and mixed reality play an important role in the education of preclinical medical and nursing university students. When compared with traditional educational modalities, the learning gain is equal with immersive technologies. Learning outcomes such as student satisfaction, self-efficacy, and engagement all increase with the use of immersive technology, suggesting that it is an optimal tool for education.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning Outcomes of Immersive Technologies in Health Care Student Education: Systematic Review of the Literature

Ryan¹,

Callaghan²,

Rafferty³

et al. 2022

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The second focus of VS-integrated learning contexts in undergraduate medical education was emergency and pediatric emergency medicine training, with 14 articles ( 10 , 16 – 18 , 29 , 30 , 34 , 39 , 51 , 55 , 68 , 79 , 93 , 101 ) published recently. Among them, eight studies ( 10 , 16 – 18 , 30 , 34 , 39 , 68 ) used VS-based teaching in pediatric emergencies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtual Simulation in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review of Recent Practice

Wang

Lü

et al. 2022

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtual simulation (VS) as an emerging interactive pedagogical strategy has been paid more and more attentions in the undergraduate medical education. Because of the fast development of modern computer simulation technologies, more and more advanced and emerging VS-based instructional practices are constantly increasing to promote medical education in diverse forms. In order to describe an overview of the current trends in VS-based medical teaching and learning, this scoping review presented a worldwide analysis of 92 recently published articles of VS in the undergraduate medical teaching and learning. The results indicated that 98% of included articles were from Europe, North America, and Asia, suggesting a possible inequity in digital medical education. Half (52%) studies reported the immersive virtual reality (VR) application. Evidence for educational effectiveness of VS in medical students’ knowledge or skills was sufficient as per Kirkpatrick’s model of outcome evaluation. Recently, VS has been widely integrated in surgical procedural training, emergency and pediatric emergency medicine training, teaching of basic medical sciences, medical radiation and imaging, puncture or catheterization training, interprofessional medical education, and other case-based learning experiences. Some challenges, such as accessibility of VS instructional resources, lack of infrastructure, “decoupling” users from reality, as well as how to increase students’ motivation and engagement, should be addressed.

show abstract

“…Therefore, next to the overall correctness of chest compression (frequency, depth, recoil), the no-flow time can be considered as a sensitive indicator of BLS quality [ 3 ], as reduced no-flow times are associated with increased survival after OHCA [ 31 ]. So far, there are no evidence-based recommendations for deliberate practice and mastery learning of BLS [ 32 ] and only few published studies explored the effectiveness of VR CPR training on procedural skills and brought inconclusive evidence [ 9 – 11 ]. This gap in knowledge was also confirmed by a recent ILCOR CoSTR review [ 23 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So far, the widespread training method of BLS is the classic instructor-led mannequin training, conducted in small groups [ 8 ]. Further instructional designs and training approaches have been suggested, including Virtual Reality (VR) [ 5 , 9 – 11 ]. VR is a computer generated simulation technique, which yields many benefits by providing a high level of immersion [ 12 – 15 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtual reality as a teaching method for resuscitation training in undergraduate first year medical students during COVID-19 pandemic: a randomised controlled trial

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Virtual reality (VR) is a computer-generated simulation technique which yields plenty of benefits and its application in medical education is growing. This study explored the effectiveness of a VR Basic Life Support (BLS) training compared to a web-based training during the COVID-19 pandemic, in which face-to-face trainings were disrupted or reduced. Methods This randomised, double-blinded, controlled study, enrolled 1st year medical students. The control group took part in web-based BLS training, the intervention group received an additional individual VR BLS training. The primary endpoint was the no-flow time-an indicator for the quality of BLS-, assessed during a structural clinical examination, in which also the overall quality of BLS (secondary outcome) was rated. The tertiary outcome was the learning gain of the undergraduates, assessed with a comparative self-assessment (CSA). Results Data from 88 undergraduates (n = 46 intervention- and n = 42 control group) were analysed. The intervention group had a significant lower no-flow time (p = .009) with a difference between the two groups of 28% (95%-CI [8%;43%]). The overall BLS performance of the intervention group was also significantly better than the control group with a mean difference of 15.44 points (95%-CI [21.049.83]), p < .001. In the CSA the undergraduates of the intervention group reported a significant higher learning gain. Conclusion VR proved to be effective in enhancing process quality of BLS, therefore, the integration of VR into resuscitation trainings should be considered. Further research needs to explore which combination of instructional designs leads to deliberate practice and mastery learning of BLS.

show abstract

Virtual reality as a teaching method for resuscitation training in undergraduate first year medical students: a randomized controlled trial

Cited by 39 publications

References 17 publications

Learning Outcomes of Immersive Technologies in Health Care Student Education: Systematic Review of the Literature

Learning Outcomes of Immersive Technologies in Health Care Student Education: Systematic Review of the Literature

Virtual Simulation in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review of Recent Practice

Virtual reality as a teaching method for resuscitation training in undergraduate first year medical students during COVID-19 pandemic: a randomised controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About