Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35910517›Full record

ArticleJournal of advances in medical education & professionalism2022

Developing measures of immersion and motivation for learning technologies in healthcare simulation: a pilot study.

Chris Jacobs, Jacob M Rigby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors.

Chris JacobsSwindon Academy, Great Western Hospital, Swindon, UK.
Jacob M RigbySchool of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, University Road, Bristol, BS8 1SS, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Medical education has benefitted from the introduction of new technology within recent years. Immersive devices, such as, 360-degree films and virtual reality have become new ways of simulating clinical experiences. The aim of the study was to validate and test reliability of a new measure of engagement. Methods: A between-participants design of 2 groups viewing a clinical consultation on a 360-degree headset or 2D monitor was conducted following computer random allocation of 40 healthcare professionals recruited from scheduled teaching. Twenty-three were assigned to 360-degree and 17 to 2D Medias. Adapted Immersion Experience Questionnaire (AIEQ) and Abridged Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (AIMI) were modified to match factors relating to clinical encounters. AIEQ and AIMI were utilised as the data collection tool by each group following video viewing. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess relationship between immersion and motivation. Comparisons between 360-degree and 2D media responses were made using Wilcoxon's signed ranks test. Internal reliability coefficients of adapted measures were calculated with Cronbach alpha scores. Results: Total immersion scores were statistically higher in those experiencing 360 (p<0.05), with a median difference of 14.50 (95% CI 6.50-22.00). A positive correlation existed between the total AIEQ and total score of the AIMI in both groups (r Conclusions: Adaptation and validation of existing measures for use in healthcare education can be used to quantify levels of immersion and motivation. Standardising measures for use in evaluating new Technology Enhanced Learning is a step to aid understanding on how we develop these tools in medical education and how we might learn from immersive technology.

Indexed as

Educational assessmentImmersionPatient simulationVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID35910517
PMCPMC9309165

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.