Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38704522›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Delivering clinical tutorials to medical students using the Microsoft HoloLens 2: A mixed-methods evaluation.

Murray Connolly, Gabriella Iohom, Niall O'Brien, James Volz, Aogán O'Muircheartaigh, Paschalitsa Serchan, Agatha Biculescu, Kedar Govind Gadre, Corina Soare, Laura Griseto and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  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

11 authors.

Murray ConnollyCork University Hospital and University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. murray.connolly@umail.ucc.ie.
Gabriella IohomCork University Hospital and University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Niall O'BrienUniversity College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
James VolzUniversity College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Aogán O'MuircheartaighCork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Paschalitsa SerchanCork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Agatha BiculescuCork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Kedar Govind GadreCork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Corina SoareCork University Hospital and University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Laura GrisetoCork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
George ShortenCork University Hospital and University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMixed reality offers potential educational advantages in the delivery of clinical teaching. Holographic artefacts can be rendered within a shared learning environment using devices such as the Microsoft HoloLens 2. In addition to facilitating remote access to clinical events, mixed reality may provide a means of sharing mental models, including the vertical and horizontal integration of curricular elements at the bedside. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of delivering clinical tutorials using the Microsoft HoloLens 2 and the learning efficacy achieved.

methodsFollowing receipt of institutional ethical approval, tutorials on preoperative anaesthetic history taking and upper airway examination were facilitated by a tutor who wore the HoloLens device. The tutor interacted face to face with a patient and two-way audio-visual interaction was facilitated using the HoloLens 2 and Microsoft Teams with groups of students who were located in a separate tutorial room. Holographic functions were employed by the tutor. The tutor completed the System Usability Scale, the tutor, technical facilitator, patients, and students provided quantitative and qualitative feedback, and three students participated in semi-structured feedback interviews. Students completed pre- and post-tutorial, and end-of-year examinations on the tutorial topics.

resultsTwelve patients and 78 students participated across 12 separate tutorials. Five students did not complete the examinations and were excluded from efficacy calculations. Student feedback contained 90 positive comments, including the technology's ability to broadcast the tutor's point-of-vision, and 62 negative comments, where students noted issues with the audio-visual quality, and concerns that the tutorial was not as beneficial as traditional in-person clinical tutorials. The technology and tutorial structure were viewed favourably by the tutor, facilitator and patients. Significant improvement was observed between students' pre- and post-tutorial MCQ scores (mean 59.2% Vs 84.7%, p < 0.001).

conclusionsThis study demonstrates the feasibility of using the HoloLens 2 to facilitate remote bedside tutorials which incorporate holographic learning artefacts. Students' examination performance supports substantial learning of the tutorial topics. The tutorial structure was agreeable to students, patients and tutor. Our results support the feasibility of offering effective clinical teaching and learning opportunities using the HoloLens 2. However, the technical limitations and costs of the device are significant, and further research is required to assess the effectiveness of this tutorial format against in-person tutorials before wider roll out of this technology can be recommended as a result of this study.

Indexed as

Students, MedicalAdultClinical CompetenceComputer-Assisted InstructionEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFeasibility StudiesFemaleHolographyHumansMaleMedical History TakingAugmented RealityHoloLensMedical EducationMixed Reality

Identifiers

PMID38704522
PMCPMC11070104

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.