Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34226234›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Upskilling health and care workers with augmented and virtual reality: protocol for a realist review to develop an evidence-informed programme theory.

Norina Gasteiger, Sabine N van der Veer, Paul Wilson, Dawn Dowding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Norina GasteigerDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK norina.gasteiger@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7801-7417
Sabine N van der VeerDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, Centre for Health Informatics, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0929-436X
Paul WilsonDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2657-5780
Dawn DowdingDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5672-8605

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAugmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) are increasingly used to upskill health and care providers, including in surgical, nursing and acute care settings. Many studies have used AR/VR to deliver training, providing mixed evidence on their effectiveness and limited evidence regarding contextual factors that influence effectiveness and implementation. This review will develop, test and refine an evidence-informed programme theory on what facilitates or constrains the implementation of AR or VR programmes in health and care settings and understand how, for whom and to what extent they 'work'. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This realist review adheres to the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) standards and will be conducted in three steps: theory elicitation, theory testing and theory refinement. First, a search will identify practitioner, academic and learning and technology adoption theories from databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Education Resources Information Center, PsycINFO and Web of Science), practitioner journals, snowballing and grey literature. Information regarding contexts, mechanisms and outcomes will be extracted. A narrative synthesis will determine overlapping configurations and form an initial theory. Second, the theory will be tested using empirical evidence located from the above databases and identified from the first search. Quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and relevant information will be extracted into a coding sheet. Third, the extracted information will be compared with the initial programme theory, with differences helping to make refinements. Findings will be presented as a narrative summary, and the MMAT will determine our confidence in each configuration. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. This review will develop an evidence-informed programme theory. The results will inform and support AR/VR interventions from clinical educators, healthcare providers and software developers. Upskilling through AR/VR learning interventions may improve quality of care and promote evidence-based practice and continued learning. Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed journal articles.

Indexed as

Virtual RealityEvidence-Based PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansResearch DesignReview Literature as Topiceducation & training (see medical education & training)health informaticsinformation technologymedical education & training

Identifiers

PMID34226234
PMCPMC8258595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.