A Comparison of Virtual Reality to Traditional Simulation in Health Professions Education

Author:

Foronda Cynthia L.,Gonzalez Laura,Meese Merrick M.,Slamon Nicholas,Baluyot Mariju,Lee Jiye,Aebersold Michelle

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.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Modeling and Simulation,Education,Medicine (miscellaneous),Epidemiology

Reference19 articles.

1. High-fidelity simulation-based education in pre-registration healthcare programmes: a systematic review of reviews to inform collaborative and interprofessional best practice;J Interprof Care,2021

2. Effectiveness of high and low fidelity simulation based medical education in teaching cardiac auscultation. A systematic review and meta-analysis;Int J Healthc Simul,2022

3. The effect of mannequin fidelity on the achievement of learning outcomes for nursing, midwifery and allied healthcare practitioners: systematic review and meta-analysis;Nurse Educ Today,2018

4. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews;BMJ,2021

5. Assessing simulation, virtual reality, and television modalities in clinical training;Clin Simul Nurs,2018

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3