Perspectives of Medical Students and Developers Regarding Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality, and 3D Printing Technologies: Survey Study

Abstract

Background Emerging technologies, such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), and 3D printing (3DP), have transformative potential in education and health care. However, complete integration has not yet been achieved, and routine use is limited. There may exist gaps in the perspectives of these technologies between users and developers, and improvement may be necessary in developing such technologies. Objective The purpose of this study was to investigate the gaps in perspectives between medical students and developers in medical education regarding satisfaction and anticipated future use of VR, AR, MR, and 3DP technologies, as well as developers’ perspectives on their advantages and current challenges. Methods This retrospective survey study was conducted during a 4-hour elective course over a period of 4 weeks. In this course, computed tomography scans of congenital heart disease patients, medical image processing software, head-mounted displays, and a virtual table were used. Student pre- and postsurveys and the developer survey included demographic and other characteristics, satisfaction, and anticipated future use of VR, AR, MR, and 3DP technologies. The advantages and current challenges of these technologies were only assessed in the developer survey. Results The study enrolled 41 participants, including 15 first-year medical students and 26 software and content developers. Students were more satisfied than developers across AR, VR, and 3DP in terms of overall satisfaction (VR and AR: P<.001; 3DP: P=.002), esthetics (VR: all P<.001; AR: vividness, P=.006 and design, P<.001; 3DP: vividness, P=.001 and design, P=.002), and continuous use intention (VR: repetition, P=.04 and continuous use, P=.02). Particularly in VR, satisfaction with reality was higher among students than among developers (real world, P=.006). Developers anticipated future use of MR for educating medical students and residents, individual and collaborative surgical planning, and performing surgery on patients. In contrast, students anticipated future use of VR primarily for student education, 3DP for resident education and individual surgical planning, and AR for collaborative surgical planning and performing surgery on patients. Developers perceived the inherent capabilities of VR, AR, and MR technologies as strengths, with hardware performance identified as a drawback. For 3DP, the possibility of customized product manufacturing was seen as an advantage, while cost was seen as a disadvantage. Conclusions This study elucidated the different perspectives between medical students and developers regarding 3D technologies, highlighting the discrepancy in potential applications and challenges within the medical field. These findings will guide the integration of 3D technologies in education and health care to fulfill the needs and goals of both medical students and developers.