Virtual reality teaching in chemotherapy administration: Randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Aims and objectives: This study examined the effect of virtual reality (VR)-based documents (VRdocs) on knowledge and attitude towards chemotherapy administration in nursing students.Background: Chemotherapeutic drugs in cancer patients are a complicated and dangerous process. However, despite the high toxicity of the chemotherapeutic drugs, the compulsory or internship courses in nursing schools do not include training in operational chemotherapeutics and its associated safety measures. Design:A randomised controlled trial based on the CONSORT 2010 guidelines (registry number: NCT03707210).Method: A total of 77 students were randomised to an experimental (VRdocs, n = 38) or a control group (n = 39). Pre-and posttest data were collected. After the pretest, the control group received the education documents, whereas, the experimental group used VR software consisting of an application about chemotherapy administration. Finally, the effectiveness of the intervention was self-evaluated using questionnaires after 7 days. Results:The posttest scores for knowledge (F = 6.412, p = .013) and attitude in the experimental group were significantly different from those in the control group (F = 8.469, p = .005). Compared with the control group, a significant number of students in the experimental group indicated their higher recommendation score for the VRdocs (p = .0001). Conclusion:Schools must provide a variety of handouts and teaching methods to educate nursing students about high-risk nursing techniques. Methods using VR can address the shortcomings of the traditional documents, and the use of both methods simultaneously can produce better learning results.Relevance to clinical practice: Virtual reality based documents were provided to the participants to understand the preparation, implementation, and safety of chemotherapy. VRdocs allow students to re-learn high-risk care techniques without the influence of time and space and may prove useful for other nursing courses.

Comment on—Virtual reality teaching in chemotherapy administration: Randomised controlled trial

“…Selective outcome reporting is a questionable research practice, because it can distort the evidence base (A.-W. Chan et al, 2004). This particular example is particularly noteworthy, because Chan et al, (2021) seemingly tell the reader they are selectively reporting by labelling knowledge and attitudes measures as secondary and self-evaluation of handouts as the primary outcome in their manuscript. It seems that neither reviewers nor editors identified this discrepancy.…”

“…

Chan et al, (2021) report the results of a randomised controlled trial, recently published in the Journal of Clinical Nursing, comparing a virtual reality teaching package with traditional hand out materials in 77 nursing students. The authors conclude that virtual reality materials were superior to printed documents.

…”

“…The authors conclude that virtual reality materials were superior to printed documents. We are writing to draw your attention to apparent selective outcome reporting by the trial authors that may have distorted the study's conclusion.The Chan et al, (2021) trial was prospectively registered (https:// clini caltr ials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03 707210) on the 16 th October 2018, before the first participant was recruited to the study.According to the registry entry, the primary trial outcome was "the questionnaire about intervention effect" [sic]. However, in the pub-…”

“…The Chan et al, (2021) trial was prospectively registered (https:// clini caltr ials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03 707210) on the 16 th October 2018, before the first participant was recruited to the study.…”

“…lished manuscript, the authors state that aim of the study was to examine "the effect of virtual reality (VR)-based documents (VRdocs) on knowledge and attitude towards chemotherapy administration in nursing students." (Chan et al, 2021, page 1). In the trial registration entry-and interestingly, in the paper-these are identified as secondary outcome measures.…”