ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2025
Identifying key drivers affecting the future of virtual reality in medical education.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immersive virtual reality for teaching hemoglobin structure in preclinical medical biochemistry education: a mixed-methods study of student self-reported perceptions.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- A neutrosophic explainable AI framework for modeling uncertainty in immersive stereotactic neurosurgical simulation.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPolicymakers must have a forward-looking mindset. Future studies are valuable tools for monitoring upcoming developments and identifying the driving forces that shape the future. This research aimed to identify the drivers or key influencing factors in the future of virtual reality in medical education. MATERIALS AND
methodThis study was conducted in 2021-2023 in three phases: conducting literature review, interviewing with experts, and categorizing these results within the STEEPV (Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental, Political, and Values) framework.
resultsContent analysis of the literature review resulted in 273 codes and seven categories. Interviews with 15 experts were analyzed, which led to 220 codes and 30 sub-categories. Ultimately, the results of the two aforementioned stages were categorized within the STEEPV framework, including six, seven, six, two, four, and five drivers in the categories of social, technological, economic, environmental, political, and values drivers, respectively.
conclusionTo successfully introduce virtual reality in universities, it is essential to create a supportive environment, adjust policies, and establish ethical guidelines. This will require initial investments, cost-reduction strategies, and collaboration with knowledge-based companies. In addition, it is vital to leverage existing technology, provide training, and enhance digital literacy to ensure effective utilization. The future of virtual reality in medical education will be influenced by technological advancements, economic factors, environmental concerns, political frameworks, and value-driven approaches.
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.