ArticleBMC medical education2025
Acceptability and applicability of using virtual reality for training mass casualty incidents- a mixed method study.
Article in BMC medical education, 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.
- Self-efficacy in mass casualty incident training using mixed reality.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Can a Generative Artificial Intelligence Model Be Used to Create Mass Casualty Incident Simulation Scenarios? A Feasibility Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBecause health professionals can end up being first responders to a mass casualty incident, they must train to improve preparedness and increase the preconditions of victim outcomes. Training and learning on how to handle a mass casualty incident is traditionally based on reading, lectures, training through computer-based scenarios, or sometimes through live simulations. Professionals should practice in realistic environments to narrow the theory-practice gap, and the possibility of repeating the training is important for learning. Virtual reality is a promising tool for realistic and repeatable simulation training, but it needs further evaluation. This study aimed to describe the acceptability and applicability of using VR for training in mass casualty incidents.
methodsA mixed-methods evaluation design was used, where the qualitative and quantitative findings were embedded into the discussion with a realist inquiry approach. A virtual reality simulation with mass casualty incident scenarios, named GoSaveThem ( www.crash.nu ), was used, and the participants were directed to perform triage. After the simulation, the participants filled in a questionnaire with open-ended questions and ratings on technical aspects, learning experiences, and improvement of preparedness. Eleven of the participants underwent interviews. The qualitative data was analyzed either summarily or with a conventional content analysis. Data were extracted from computer recordings of how long it took for each participant to triage the first 10 victims and to what extent the triage for the first 10 victims was correct. Descriptive statistical analyses were done, and a comparison was made to see if there were any differences between age, sex, educational background, and previous experiences that affected the outcome of triaging.
resultsTraining with virtual reality enables repeatable and realistic simulation training of mass casualty incidents. The participants expressed motivation to repeat the training and experience expanded virtual reality scenarios. This study shows that the acceptability and applicability of using VR for training MCIs were high overall in all examined dimensions for most users, with some exceptions.
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.