ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2024
Want doctors to use VR simulation? Make it mandatory, accessible, educationally valuable, and enjoyable!
Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Virtual Reality Simulation in Postgraduate Pediatric Critical Care Training Based on Trainee Perceptions in London: Exploratory Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Stepping into the virtual ward: a qualitative study on first-year residents' experiences with VR simulation.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Want doctors to use VR simulation? Make it mandatory, accessible, educationally valuable, and enjoyable!MedEdPublish (2016) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Virtual reality (VR) simulation training is mandatory for postgraduate year 1-2 doctors at the author's hospital trust. Despite this, a preceding quantitative study demonstrated uptake below required levels. While the educational value of VR simulation has been highlighted, little attention has been paid to participant utilisation in postgraduate curricula. With the increasing development and incorporation of VR-based clinical education, it is essential to understand the factors influencing how frequently postgraduate doctors utilise it so that its potential can be maximised. Methods: A qualitative study design was employed. All 108 postgraduate year 1-2 doctors from the 2020-21 training year were invited for a semi-structured interview. Interviews continued until data saturation was reached in the form of informational redundancy. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 17 interviews were conducted. Four main themes that influenced participation in VR simulation were identified: (1) the mandatory nature encouraged participation but led to negative perceptions as a tick-box exercise; (2) there were multiple challenges to accessing the resource; (3) the scenarios were felt to have limited educational value; and (4) there was untapped potential in drawing benefits from VR as an enjoyable leisure activity. Conclusions: Recommendations from these findings include: (1) VR simulation should be mandatory but with a degree of learner autonomy; (2) sessions should be integrated into doctors' rotas as protected time; (3) more challenging scenarios ought to be created aligned with postgraduate courses, examinations, and specialty training, and (4) presented as a difficulty level system akin to gaming experiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.