Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35103607›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2022

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

Grace V Ryan, Shauna Callaghan, Anthony Rafferty, Mary F Higgins, Eleni Mangina, Fionnuala McAuliffe

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Virtual reality exoskeleton for post-partum uterine tamponade balloon training: Impact on learning and operator satisfaction.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Grace V Ryan *Perinatal Research Centre, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-8052-0780
Shauna CallaghanPerinatal Research Centre, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-3085-4897
Anthony RaffertyPerinatal Research Centre, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-1167-8111
Mary F HigginsPerinatal Research Centre, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-6469-5169
Eleni ManginaSchool of Computer Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-3374-0307
Fionnuala McAuliffePerinatal Research Centre, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-3477-6494

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere 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.

objectiveThe 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsOf 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.

conclusionsVirtual, 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.

Indexed as

LearningStudents, NursingDelivery of Health CareHumansTechnologyAugmented RealityLearning OutcomesMedical EducationMidwifery EducationMixed RealityNursing EducationSystematic ReviewVirtual Reality

Identifiers

PMID35103607
PMCPMC8848248

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.