A Comparison of Virtual Reality to Traditional Simulation in Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-31 DOI:10.1097/SIH.0000000000000745
Cynthia L Foronda, Laura Gonzalez, Merrick M Meese, Nicholas Slamon, Mariju Baluyot, Jiye Lee, Michelle Aebersold
{"title":"A Comparison of Virtual Reality to Traditional Simulation in Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Cynthia L Foronda, Laura Gonzalez, Merrick M Meese, Nicholas Slamon, Mariju Baluyot, Jiye Lee, Michelle Aebersold","doi":"10.1097/SIH.0000000000000745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>With the increasing availability of virtual reality (VR) and its lower overall costs of use, the objective of this review was to compare VR to traditional simulation in terms of learning outcomes. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: ( a ) research study (of any design), ( b ) focused on learners in health professions, and ( c ) compared VR with traditional simulation. Studies were excluded for the following reasons: ( a ) not a research study, ( b ) focused on learners outside health professions, ( c ) used screen-based or computer-based simulation, ( d ) used a task trainer, and ( e ) did not involve a comparison of VR to traditional simulation. The searches were run on November 11 and 12, 2021, in CINAHL via EBSCO, Ovid Embase, ERIC via EBSCO, IEEE Xplore, Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines guided the review. A team of researchers applied Kirkpatrick's Levels, Melnyk's Levels of Evidence, and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme guidelines to assess the level of evidence and look for bias. Fifteen studies were reviewed including 11 randomized controlled trials. The lead researcher synthesized the study results into 3 categories: (1) traditional simulation performed better, (2) VR performed better, and (3) comparable outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to endorse one form of simulation (VR or traditional) as more effective at this time. The body of evidence contained too few studies to draw meaningful conclusions to answer the guiding question. The studies covered a large range of modalities, learner groups, and healthcare topics, preventing a meta-analysis. Based on the literature and experience, we recommend that VR experiences be proctored, include debriefing, have a backup plan for cybersickness or myopia, and have time and costs documented. Use of VR is likely to expand; thus, research is needed to inform the best contexts and applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":49517,"journal":{"name":"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000745","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: With the increasing availability of virtual reality (VR) and its lower overall costs of use, the objective of this review was to compare VR to traditional simulation in terms of learning outcomes. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: ( a ) research study (of any design), ( b ) focused on learners in health professions, and ( c ) compared VR with traditional simulation. Studies were excluded for the following reasons: ( a ) not a research study, ( b ) focused on learners outside health professions, ( c ) used screen-based or computer-based simulation, ( d ) used a task trainer, and ( e ) did not involve a comparison of VR to traditional simulation. The searches were run on November 11 and 12, 2021, in CINAHL via EBSCO, Ovid Embase, ERIC via EBSCO, IEEE Xplore, Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines guided the review. A team of researchers applied Kirkpatrick's Levels, Melnyk's Levels of Evidence, and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme guidelines to assess the level of evidence and look for bias. Fifteen studies were reviewed including 11 randomized controlled trials. The lead researcher synthesized the study results into 3 categories: (1) traditional simulation performed better, (2) VR performed better, and (3) comparable outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to endorse one form of simulation (VR or traditional) as more effective at this time. The body of evidence contained too few studies to draw meaningful conclusions to answer the guiding question. The studies covered a large range of modalities, learner groups, and healthcare topics, preventing a meta-analysis. Based on the literature and experience, we recommend that VR experiences be proctored, include debriefing, have a backup plan for cybersickness or myopia, and have time and costs documented. Use of VR is likely to expand; thus, research is needed to inform the best contexts and applications.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
卫生专业教育中虚拟现实与传统模拟的比较:系统回顾。
摘要:随着虚拟现实技术(VR)的日益普及及其较低的总体使用成本,本综述旨在比较 VR 与传统模拟的学习效果。符合以下标准的研究均被纳入其中:(a) 研究(任何设计),(b) 侧重于健康专业的学习者,(c) 将 VR 与传统模拟进行比较。因以下原因而被排除的研究:(a)不是研究,(b)以卫生专业以外的学习者为研究对象,(c)使用基于屏幕或计算机的模拟,(d)使用任务训练器,(e)不涉及 VR 与传统模拟的比较。检索工作于 2021 年 11 月 11 日和 12 日在 EBSCO 的 CINAHL、Ovid Embase、EBSCO 的 ERIC、IEEE Xplore、Ovid Medline、Ovid PsycINFO、Scopus 和 Web of Science Core Collection 中进行。系统综述和元分析的首选报告项目》指南为综述提供了指导。研究团队采用柯克帕特里克证据等级、梅尔尼克证据等级和批判性评价技能计划指南来评估证据等级并查找偏倚。共审查了 15 项研究,包括 11 项随机对照试验。首席研究员将研究结果归纳为三类:(1) 传统模拟效果更好;(2) 虚拟现实效果更好;(3) 结果相当。目前还没有足够的证据来证明某种模拟形式(VR 或传统模拟)更有效。证据包含的研究太少,无法得出有意义的结论来回答指导性问题。这些研究涉及多种模式、学习者群体和医疗保健主题,因此无法进行荟萃分析。根据文献和经验,我们建议对 VR 体验进行监听,包括汇报,制定晕机或近视后备计划,并记录时间和成本。VR 的使用范围很可能会扩大,因此需要开展研究,以确定最佳情境和应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
158
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare is a multidisciplinary publication encompassing all areas of applications and research in healthcare simulation technology. The journal is relevant to a broad range of clinical and biomedical specialties, and publishes original basic, clinical, and translational research on these topics and more: Safety and quality-oriented training programs; Development of educational and competency assessment standards; Reports of experience in the use of simulation technology; Virtual reality; Epidemiologic modeling; Molecular, pharmacologic, and disease modeling.
期刊最新文献
Creation of a Novel Child Simulator and Curriculum to Optimize Administration of Seizure Rescue Medication. Increase in Newborns Ventilated Within the First Minute of Life and Reduced Mortality After Clinical Data-Guided Simulation Training. Systematic Review of Procedural Skill Simulation in Health Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Optimal Duration of High-Fidelity Simulator Training for Bronchoscope-Guided Intubation: A Noninferiority Randomized Trial. Theoretical, Conceptual, and Operational Aspects in Simulation Training With Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice: An Integrative Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1