Does Extended Reality Simulation Improve Surgical/Procedural Learning and Patient Outcomes When Compared With Standard Training Methods?: 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 DOI:10.1097/SIH.0000000000000767
William J Woodall, Eugene H Chang, Serkan Toy, Deborah R Lee, Jonathan H Sherman, Matthew Liu, Philip Chen, Emily Youner, James Cooke, Andy Lancaster, Danielle Gerberi, Aalap Herur-Raman
{"title":"Does Extended Reality Simulation Improve Surgical/Procedural Learning and Patient Outcomes When Compared With Standard Training Methods?: A Systematic Review.","authors":"William J Woodall, Eugene H Chang, Serkan Toy, Deborah R Lee, Jonathan H Sherman, Matthew Liu, Philip Chen, Emily Youner, James Cooke, Andy Lancaster, Danielle Gerberi, Aalap Herur-Raman","doi":"10.1097/SIH.0000000000000767","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of extended reality (XR) technologies, including virtual, augmented, and mixed reality, has increased within surgical and procedural training programs. Few studies have assessed experiential learning- and patient-based outcomes using XR compared with standard training methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>As a working group for the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, we used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and a PICO strategy to perform a systematic review of 4238 articles to assess the effectiveness of XR technologies compared with standard training methods. Outcomes were grouped into knowledge, time-to-completion, technical proficiency, reactions, and patient outcomes. Because of study heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not feasible.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-two studies met eligibility criteria: 18 randomized controlled trials, 7 comparative studies, and 7 systematic reviews. Outcomes of most studies included Kirkpatrick levels of evidence I-III (reactions, knowledge, and behavior), while few reported level IV outcomes (patient). The overall risk of bias was low. With few exceptions, included studies showed XR technology to be more effective than standard training methods in improving objective skills and performance, shortening procedure time, and receiving more positive learner ratings. However, XR use did not show significant differences in gained knowledge.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Surgical or procedural XR training may improve technical skill development among trainees and is generally favored over standard training methods. However, there should be an additional focus on how skill development translates to clinically relevant outcomes. We recommend longitudinal studies to examine retention and transfer of training to clinical settings, methods to improve timely, adaptive feedback for deliberate practice, and cost analyses.</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.0000000000000767","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The use of extended reality (XR) technologies, including virtual, augmented, and mixed reality, has increased within surgical and procedural training programs. Few studies have assessed experiential learning- and patient-based outcomes using XR compared with standard training methods.

Methods: As a working group for the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, we used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and a PICO strategy to perform a systematic review of 4238 articles to assess the effectiveness of XR technologies compared with standard training methods. Outcomes were grouped into knowledge, time-to-completion, technical proficiency, reactions, and patient outcomes. Because of study heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not feasible.

Results: Thirty-two studies met eligibility criteria: 18 randomized controlled trials, 7 comparative studies, and 7 systematic reviews. Outcomes of most studies included Kirkpatrick levels of evidence I-III (reactions, knowledge, and behavior), while few reported level IV outcomes (patient). The overall risk of bias was low. With few exceptions, included studies showed XR technology to be more effective than standard training methods in improving objective skills and performance, shortening procedure time, and receiving more positive learner ratings. However, XR use did not show significant differences in gained knowledge.

Conclusions: Surgical or procedural XR training may improve technical skill development among trainees and is generally favored over standard training methods. However, there should be an additional focus on how skill development translates to clinically relevant outcomes. We recommend longitudinal studies to examine retention and transfer of training to clinical settings, methods to improve timely, adaptive feedback for deliberate practice, and cost analyses.

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
与标准培训方法相比,扩展现实模拟是否能改善手术/程序学习和患者疗效?系统回顾。
导言:扩展现实(XR)技术,包括虚拟现实、增强现实和混合现实,在外科手术和程序培训项目中的使用越来越多。与标准培训方法相比,很少有研究对使用 XR 的体验式学习和基于患者的结果进行评估:作为医疗保健模拟学会的一个工作组,我们采用了《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南和 PICO 策略,对 4238 篇文章进行了系统综述,以评估 XR 技术与标准培训方法相比的有效性。结果分为知识、完成时间、技术熟练程度、反应和患者预后。由于研究存在异质性,因此无法进行荟萃分析:32项研究符合资格标准:18 项随机对照试验、7 项比较研究和 7 项系统综述。大多数研究的结果包括柯克帕特里克证据等级 I-III(反应、知识和行为),只有少数研究报告了 IV 级结果(患者)。总体偏倚风险较低。除少数例外情况外,纳入的研究表明,XR 技术在提高客观技能和表现、缩短手术时间以及获得更多学员好评方面比标准培训方法更有效。然而,XR的使用并没有显示出在获得知识方面的显著差异:结论:手术或程序 XR 培训可提高受训者的技术技能发展,与标准培训方法相比普遍受到青睐。但是,还应该进一步关注技能发展如何转化为临床相关结果。我们建议进行纵向研究,以检查培训的保留率和向临床环境的转移情况,以及改进用于刻意练习的及时、适应性反馈的方法和成本分析。
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