Want doctors to use VR simulation? Make it mandatory, accessible, educationally valuable, and enjoyable!

MedEdPublish (2016) Pub Date : 2024-06-17 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.12688/mep.20040.2
Riki Houlden, Fiona Crichton
{"title":"Want doctors to use VR simulation? Make it mandatory, accessible, educationally valuable, and enjoyable!","authors":"Riki Houlden, Fiona Crichton","doi":"10.12688/mep.20040.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Virtual reality (VR) simulation training is mandatory for postgraduate year 1-2 doctors at the author's hospital trust. Despite this, a preceding quantitative study demonstrated uptake below required levels. While the educational value of VR simulation has been highlighted, little attention has been paid to participant utilisation in postgraduate curricula. With the increasing development and incorporation of VR-based clinical education, it is essential to understand the factors influencing how frequently postgraduate doctors utilise it so that its potential can be maximised.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative study design was employed. All 108 postgraduate year 1-2 doctors from the 2020-21 training year were invited for a semi-structured interview. Interviews continued until data saturation was reached in the form of informational redundancy. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 17 interviews were conducted. Four main themes that influenced participation in VR simulation were identified: (1) the mandatory nature encouraged participation but led to negative perceptions as a tick-box exercise; (2) there were multiple challenges to accessing the resource; (3) the scenarios were felt to have limited educational value; and (4) there was untapped potential in drawing benefits from VR as an enjoyable leisure activity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recommendations from these findings include: (1) VR simulation should be mandatory but with a degree of learner autonomy; (2) sessions should be integrated into doctors' rotas as protected time; (3) more challenging scenarios ought to be created aligned with postgraduate courses, examinations, and specialty training, and (4) presented as a difficulty level system akin to gaming experiences.</p>","PeriodicalId":74136,"journal":{"name":"MedEdPublish (2016)","volume":"14 ","pages":"8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11200059/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedEdPublish (2016)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.20040.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Virtual reality (VR) simulation training is mandatory for postgraduate year 1-2 doctors at the author's hospital trust. Despite this, a preceding quantitative study demonstrated uptake below required levels. While the educational value of VR simulation has been highlighted, little attention has been paid to participant utilisation in postgraduate curricula. With the increasing development and incorporation of VR-based clinical education, it is essential to understand the factors influencing how frequently postgraduate doctors utilise it so that its potential can be maximised.

Methods: A qualitative study design was employed. All 108 postgraduate year 1-2 doctors from the 2020-21 training year were invited for a semi-structured interview. Interviews continued until data saturation was reached in the form of informational redundancy. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted.

Results: A total of 17 interviews were conducted. Four main themes that influenced participation in VR simulation were identified: (1) the mandatory nature encouraged participation but led to negative perceptions as a tick-box exercise; (2) there were multiple challenges to accessing the resource; (3) the scenarios were felt to have limited educational value; and (4) there was untapped potential in drawing benefits from VR as an enjoyable leisure activity.

Conclusions: Recommendations from these findings include: (1) VR simulation should be mandatory but with a degree of learner autonomy; (2) sessions should be integrated into doctors' rotas as protected time; (3) more challenging scenarios ought to be created aligned with postgraduate courses, examinations, and specialty training, and (4) presented as a difficulty level system akin to gaming experiences.

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
想让医生使用 VR 模拟?让它具有强制性、可访问性、教育价值和愉悦性!
背景:虚拟现实(VR)模拟培训是作者所在医院信托基金的研究生 1-2 年级医生的必修课。尽管如此,之前的一项定量研究表明,参与人数低于规定水平。虽然 VR 模拟的教育价值已得到强调,但很少有人关注研究生课程中参与者的使用情况。随着基于 VR 的临床教育的不断发展和融入,有必要了解影响研究生医生使用 VR 的频率的因素,以便最大限度地发挥其潜力:采用定性研究设计。所有 108 名来自 2020-21 培训年的 1-2 级研究生医生均受邀参加了半结构化访谈。访谈一直持续到信息冗余形式的数据饱和为止。结果:共进行了 17 次访谈:共进行了 17 次访谈。确定了影响参与 VR 模拟的四个主要主题:(1) 强制性鼓励参与,但也导致了消极的看法,认为这是一种 "打勾 "的做法;(2) 在获取资源方面存在多种挑战;(3) 人们认为情景模拟的教育价值有限;(4) VR 作为一种令人愉悦的休闲活动,在从中汲取益处方面还存在尚未开发的潜力:这些研究结果提出的建议包括(结论:这些研究结果提出的建议包括:(1)VR 模拟应是强制性的,但学习者应拥有一定程度的自主权;(2)应将模拟课程作为受保护的时间纳入医生的轮班表中;(3)应根据研究生课程、考试和专科培训的需要创建更具挑战性的情景;(4)以类似于游戏体验的难度级别系统的形式呈现。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 weeks
期刊最新文献
Medical students' knowledge on palliative care - a survey of teaching in Finland. Developing a clinician-friendly rubric for assessing history-taking skills in medical undergraduates speaking English as a foreign language. A retrospective feedback analysis of objective structured clinical examination performance of undergraduate medical students. Guidelines for Integrating actionable A-SMART Learning Outcomes into the Backward Design Process. Practical tips for teaching medicine in the metaverse.
×
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