44
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Learning Outcomes of Immersive Technologies in Health Care Student Education: Systematic Review of the Literature

      review-article
      , MUDR, MRCPI 1 , , RM, PhD 1 , , BSc, MBChB, PhD 1 , , MSc, MD, MRCPI, MRCOG 1 , , HDip, MSc, PhD 2 , , MD, MRCPI, MRCOG 1 ,
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      Journal of Medical Internet Research
      JMIR Publications
      Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality, Learning Outcomes, Medical Education, Nursing Education, Midwifery Education, Systematic Review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There is a lack of evidence in the literature regarding the learning outcomes of immersive technologies as educational tools for teaching university-level health care students.

          Objective

          The aim of this review is to assess the learning outcomes of immersive technologies compared with traditional learning modalities with regard to knowledge and the participants’ learning experience in medical, midwifery, and nursing preclinical university education.

          Methods

          A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Randomized controlled trials comparing traditional learning methods with virtual, augmented, or mixed reality for the education of medicine, nursing, or midwifery students were evaluated. The identified studies were screened by 2 authors independently. Disagreements were discussed with a third reviewer. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) in April 2020.

          Results

          Of 15,627 studies, 29 (0.19%) randomized controlled trials (N=2722 students) were included and evaluated using the MERSQI tool. Knowledge gain was found to be equal when immersive technologies were compared with traditional learning modalities; however, the learning experience increased with immersive technologies. The mean MERSQI score was 12.64 (SD 1.6), the median was 12.50, and the mode was 13.50. Immersive technology was predominantly used to teach clinical skills (15/29, 52%), and virtual reality (22/29, 76%) was the most commonly used form of immersive technology. Knowledge was the primary outcome in 97% (28/29) of studies. Approximately 66% (19/29) of studies used validated instruments and scales to assess secondary learning outcomes, including satisfaction, self-efficacy, engagement, and perceptions of the learning experience. Of the 29 studies, 19 (66%) included medical students (1706/2722, 62.67%), 8 (28%) included nursing students (727/2722, 26.71%), and 2 (7%) included both medical and nursing students (289/2722, 10.62%). There were no studies involving midwifery students. The studies were based on the following disciplines: anatomy, basic clinical skills and history-taking skills, neurology, respiratory medicine, acute medicine, dermatology, communication skills, internal medicine, and emergency medicine.

          Conclusions

          Virtual, augmented, and mixed reality play an important role in the education of preclinical medical and nursing university students. When compared with traditional educational modalities, the learning gain is equal with immersive technologies. Learning outcomes such as student satisfaction, self-efficacy, and engagement all increase with the use of immersive technology, suggesting that it is an optimal tool for education.

          Related collections

          Most cited references69

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

          David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Appraising the quality of medical education research methods: the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education.

            The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education (NOS-E) were developed to appraise methodological quality in medical education research. The study objective was to evaluate the interrater reliability, normative scores, and between-instrument correlation for these two instruments.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Association between funding and quality of published medical education research.

              Methodological shortcomings in medical education research are often attributed to insufficient funding, yet an association between funding and study quality has not been established. To develop and evaluate an instrument for measuring the quality of education research studies and to assess the relationship between funding and study quality. Internal consistency, interrater and intrarater reliability, and criterion validity were determined for a 10-item medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI). This was applied to 210 medical education research studies published in 13 peer-reviewed journals between September 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003. The amount of funding obtained per study and the publication record of the first author were determined by survey. Study quality as measured by the MERSQI (potential maximum total score, 18; maximum domain score, 3), amount of funding per study, and previous publications by the first author. The mean MERSQI score was 9.95 (SD, 2.34; range, 5-16). Mean domain scores were highest for data analysis (2.58) and lowest for validity (0.69). Intraclass correlation coefficient ranges for interrater and intrarater reliability were 0.72 to 0.98 and 0.78 to 0.998, respectively. Total MERSQI scores were associated with expert quality ratings (Spearman rho, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.84; P < .001), 3-year citation rate (0.8 increase in score per 10 citations; 95% CI, 0.03-1.30; P = .003), and journal impact factor (1.0 increase in score per 6-unit increase in impact factor; 95% CI, 0.34-1.56; P = .003). In multivariate analysis, MERSQI scores were independently associated with study funding of $20 000 or more (0.95 increase in score; 95% CI, 0.22-1.86; P = .045) and previous medical education publications by the first author (1.07 increase in score per 20 publications; 95% CI, 0.15-2.23; P = .047). The quality of published medical education research is associated with study funding.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J Med Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                February 2022
                1 February 2022
                : 24
                : 2
                : e30082
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Perinatal Research Centre Obstetrics and Gynaecology School of Medicine, University College Dublin Dublin Ireland
                [2 ] School of Computer Science University College Dublin Dublin Ireland
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Fionnuala McAuliffe fionnuala.mcauliffe@ 123456ucd.ie
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8052-0780
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3085-4897
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1167-8111
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6469-5169
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3374-0307
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3477-6494
                Article
                v24i2e30082
                10.2196/30082
                8848248
                35103607
                50287a59-45ef-43db-8eea-99a9304102cf
                ©Grace V Ryan, Shauna Callaghan, Anthony Rafferty, Mary F Higgins, Eleni Mangina, Fionnuala McAuliffe. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 01.02.2022.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 30 April 2021
                : 28 June 2021
                : 11 July 2021
                : 26 October 2021
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                Medicine
                virtual reality,augmented reality,mixed reality,learning outcomes,medical education,nursing education,midwifery education,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article