Observational studyBMC medical education2024
The feasibility and usability of mixed reality teaching in a hospital setting based on self-reported perceptions of medical students.
Observational study 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Delivering remote procedural training on peripheral intravenous cannulation to medical students using the Microsoft Hololens 2: a mixed-methods evaluation.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Using head-mounted augmented and virtual reality devices for anaesthesia education: a scoping review.BJA open · 2026Review
- Exploring the Application of HoloLens Mixed Reality Combined with Eye Tracking and Visual Perception Technologies in Pediatric Orthopedic 3D Education.Journal of medical systems · 2025Review
- Usefulness of Mixed Reality in Surgical Treatment: Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Measuring Stress and Perceptions for a Virtual Reality-Based Pericardiocentesis Procedure Simulation for Medical Training: Usability Study.JMIR serious games · 2025Article
- An Evaluation of the Microsoft HoloLens2 in the Clinical Teaching of Pain Pathways for Undergraduate Medical Students.The journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical teaching during encounters with real patients lies at the heart of medical education. Mixed reality (MR) using a Microsoft HoloLens 2 (HL2) offers the potential to address several challenges: including enabling remote learning; decreasing infection control risks; facilitating greater access to medical specialties; and enhancing learning by vertical integration of basic principles to clinical application. We aimed to assess the feasibility and usability of MR using the HL2 for teaching in a busy, tertiary referral university hospital.
methodsThis prospective observational study examined the use of the HL2 to facilitate a live two-way broadcast of a clinician-patient encounter, to remotely situated third and fourth year medical students. System Usability Scale (SUS) Scores were elicited from participating medical students, clinician, and technician. Feedback was also elicited from participating patients. A modified Evaluation of Technology-Enhanced Learning Materials: Learner Perceptions Questionnaire (mETELM) was completed by medical students and patients.
resultsThis was a mixed methods prospective, observational study, undertaken in the Day of Surgery Assessment Unit. Forty-seven medical students participated. The mean SUS score for medical students was 71.4 (SD 15.4), clinician (SUS = 75) and technician (SUS = 70) indicating good usability. The mETELM Questionnaire using a 7-point Likert Scale demonstrated MR was perceived to be more beneficial than a PowerPoint presentation (Median = 7, Range 6-7). Opinion amongst the student cohort was divided as to whether the MR tutorial was as beneficial for learning as a live patient encounter would have been (Median = 5, Range 3-6). Students were positive about the prospect of incorporating of MR in future tutorials (Median = 7, Range 5-7). The patients' mETELM results indicate the HL2 did not affect communication with the clinician (Median = 7, Range 7-7). The MR tutorial was preferred to a format based on small group teaching at the bedside (Median = 6, Range 4-7).
conclusionsOur study findings indicate that MR teaching using the HL2 demonstrates good usability characteristics for providing education to medical students at least in a clinical setting and under conditions similar to those of our study. Also, it is feasible to deliver to remotely located students, although certain practical constraints apply including Wi-Fi and audio quality.
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.