Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36877550›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2023

The Effects of Immersive Virtual Reality Applications on Enhancing the Learning Outcomes of Undergraduate Health Care Students: Systematic Review With Meta-synthesis.

Justina Yat Wa Liu, Yue-Heng Yin, Patrick Pui Kin Kor, Daphne Sze Ki Cheung, Ivy Yan Zhao, Shanshan Wang, Jing Jing Su, Martin Christensen, Stefanos Tyrovolas, Angela Y M Leung

Open access · goldFull text readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Justina Yat Wa LiuSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0003-1931-0159
Yue-Heng YinSchool of Nursing, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7629-2597
Patrick Pui Kin KorSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0002-9785-973X
Daphne Sze Ki CheungSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0001-5651-9352
Ivy Yan ZhaoSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0003-4597-8929
Shanshan WangSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0003-3881-0087
Jing Jing SuSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0002-8242-811X
Martin ChristensenSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0001-6820-020X
Stefanos TyrovolasSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0003-4797-7743
Angela Y M LeungSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0002-9836-1925
Hong Kong Polytechnic University · HKNanjing Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmersive virtual reality (IVR) applications are gaining popularity in health care education. They provide an uninterrupted, scaled environment capable of simulating the full magnitude of sensory stimuli present in busy health care settings and increase students' competence and confidence by providing them with accessible and repeatable learning opportunities in a fail-safe environment.

objectiveThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of IVR teaching on the learning outcomes and experiences of undergraduate health care students compared with other teaching methods.

methodsMEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus were searched (last search on May 2022) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental studies published in English between January 2000 and March 2022. The inclusion criteria were studies involving undergraduate students majoring in health care, IVR teaching, and evaluations of students' learning outcomes and experiences. The methodological validity of the studies was examined using the Joanna Briggs Institute standard critical appraisal instruments for RCTs or quasi-experimental studies. The findings were synthesized without a meta-analysis using vote counting as the synthesis metric. A binomial test with P<.05 was used to test for statistical significance using SPSS (version 28; IBM Corp). The overall quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool.

resultsA total of 17 articles from 16 studies totaling 1787 participants conducted between 2007 and 2021 were included. The undergraduate students in the studies majored in medicine, nursing, rehabilitation, pharmacy, biomedicine, radiography, audiology, or stomatology. The IVR teaching domains included procedural training (13/16, 81%), anatomical knowledge (2/16, 12%), and orientation to the operating room setting (1/16, 6%). The quality of the 75% (12/16) of RCT studies was poor, with unclear descriptions of randomization, allocation concealment, and outcome assessor blinding procedures. The overall risk of bias was relatively low in the 25% (4/16) of quasi-experimental studies. A vote count showed that 60% (9/15; 95% CI 16.3%-67.7%; P=.61) of the studies identified similar learning outcomes between IVR teaching and other teaching approaches regardless of teaching domains. The vote count showed that 62% (8/13) of the studies favored using IVR as a teaching medium. The results of the binomial test (95% CI 34.9%-90%; P=.59) did not show a statistically significant difference. Low-level evidence was identified based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool.

conclusionsThis review found that undergraduate students had positive learning outcomes and experiences after engaging with IVR teaching, although the effects may be similar to those of other forms of virtual reality or conventional teaching methods. Given the identification of risk of bias and low level of the overall evidence, more studies with a larger sample size and robust study design are required to evaluate the effects of IVR teaching.

trial registrationInternational prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42022313706; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=313706.

Indexed as

LearningPharmaciesHealth EducationHumansStudentseffectsimmersive virtual realitymeta-synthesissystematic reviewundergraduate health care educationvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID36877550
PMCPMC10028520
OpenAlexW4323294703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read142
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.