Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38124094›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2023

The effect of using desktop VR to practice preoperative handovers with the ISBAR approach: a randomized controlled trial.

Eva Mari Andreasen, Helen Berg, Aslak Steinsbekk, Rune Høigaard, Kristin Haraldstad

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2023. 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
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eva Mari AndreasenDepartment of Health and Nursing Sciences, University of Agder, P.O. Box 422, 4604, Kristiansand, Norway. eva.mari.andreasen@uia.no.
Helen BergDepartment of Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 1517, 6025, Ålesund, Norway.
Aslak SteinsbekkDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 8900, 7491, Trondheim, Norway.
Rune HøigaardDepartment of Sport Science and Physical Education, University of Agder, P.O. Box 422, 4604, Kristiansand, Norway.
Kristin HaraldstadDepartment of Health and Nursing Sciences, University of Agder, P.O. Box 422, 4604, Kristiansand, Norway.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology · NOUniversity of Agder · NOAgder Research · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim was to investigate whether second-year undergraduate nursing students practicing the Identification-Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation (ISBAR) communication approach in a desktop virtual reality (VR) application had a non-inferior learning outcome compared with the traditional paper-based method when sorting patient information correctly based on the ISBAR structure.

methodsA non-inferior parallel group assessor blinded randomized controlled trial, conducted in simulation sessions as part of preparation for clinical placements in March and April 2022. After a 20-minute introductory session, the participants were randomized to self-practice the ISBAR approach for 45 minutes in groups of three in either an interactive desktop VR application (intervention) or traditional paper-based (TP) simulation. The primary outcome concerned the proportion of nursing students who sorted all 11 statements of patient information in the correct ISBAR order within a time limit of 5 min. The predefined, one-sided, non-inferiority limit was 13 percentage points in favor of traditional paper-based simulation.

resultsOf 210 eligible students, 175 (83%) participated and were allocated randomly to the VR (N = 87) or TP (N = 88) group. Practicing in the desktop VR application (36% of everything correct) was non-inferior to the traditional paper-based method (22% everything correct), with a difference of 14.2 percentage points (95% CI 0.7 to 27.1) in favor of VR. The VR group repeated the simulation 0.6 times more (95% CI 0.5 to 0.7). Twenty percent more (95% CI 6.9 to 31.6) of the students in the VR group reported liked how they practiced. All the other outcomes including the System Usability Scale indicated non-inferiority or were in favor of VR.

conclusionsSelf-practicing with the ISBAR approach in desktop VR was non-inferior to the traditional paper-based method and gave a superior learning outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN62680352 registered 30/05/2023.

Indexed as

Education, Nursing, BaccalaureatePatient HandoffStudents, NursingVirtual RealityComputer SimulationHumansDesktop virtual realityISBAR approachNursing studentsPreoperative handoverSelf-practiceStructured communicationTraditional paper-based

Identifiers

PMID38124094
PMCPMC10731819
OpenAlexW4390005572

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.