ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2025
Comparing Clinical Preparedness of Newly Qualified Diagnostic Radiographers Trained With Immersive Virtual Reality vs. Traditional Simulation: A Mixed-Methods Study.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2025. 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.
- Agentic Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging Education: Architectural Autonomy and the Risk of Cognitive Surrender.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Holographic Imaging Combined with VR Simulation in Obstetrics and Gynecology Resident Training: A Review on Skill Development and Patient Privacy Protection.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Augmented Reality in Radiography Education: Opportunities, Limitations and Lessons From Virtual Reality Research.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPreparing diagnostic radiographers for clinical roles is vital to ensure readiness for real-world scenarios. Traditional simulation methods have been central to radiography education, but virtual reality (VR) technology introduces immersive and dynamic environments that may enhance clinical preparedness. This study compares the perceptions of clinical preparedness among newly qualified radiographers trained with VR by Virtual Medical Coaching and traditional simulation methods.
methodsA mixed-methods comparative study was conducted with 80 newly qualified radiographers from two universities. Forty were trained using VR, and forty with traditional methods. Participation in the assigned simulation methods was mandatory, but students could opt out of having their responses recorded. All invited students consented to inclusion in the study. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, focus groups and objective performance measures, including input from heads of departments. Thematic analysis identified key themes in qualitative data, while quantitative data were analysed using mixed-effects models, two-way ANOVA and t-tests.
resultsThe mixed-effects model showed that VR-trained students had significantly higher clinical preparedness scores (β = 0.905, SE = 0.106, z = 8.513, p < 0.001). T-tests revealed that VR-trained students scored higher in confidence, adaptability, technical proficiency and problem-solving skills (p < 0.0001). VR-trained radiographers also outperformed their traditionally trained counterparts in supervisor evaluations, radiograph quality and emergency performance.
conclusionVR training enhances confidence, adaptability and technical proficiency in newly qualified radiographers. Its immersive nature, combined with immediate feedback, contributes to improved clinical preparedness. This study highlights the potential benefits of incorporating VR into radiography education.
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.