ArticlePEC innovation2025
Acceptability of virtual reality for training health professions students in serious illness communication: A cross-sectional study with educators.
Article in PEC innovation, 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.
- Artificial intelligence and virtual reality-based communication skills training in nursing education: a systematic review with implications for palliative care.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- The Role of Virtual and Augmented Reality in Transsphenoidal Surgical Approaches to the Sellar and Parasellar Area-A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study investigates i) acceptability, ii) predictors of intention to use, iii) barriers and facilitators, and iv) perceived advantages and disadvantages of incorporating virtual reality (VR) into serious illness communication training from the perspective of health professions educators in Europe. Methods: An online survey was distributed using snowball sampling across health professions educators involved in the creation and/or delivery of difficult communication courses (as educators, developers, coordinators). Results: Seventy-five educators from 11 European countries involved in teaching serious illness communication skills completed the survey. While educators viewed VR positively and saw it as useful, their intention to implement it was moderate, possibly, due to low compatibility with current teaching methods and social norms. Major barriers reported by participants included financial constraints (62.7 %) and lack of VR training (54.7 %), while key facilitators were training availability (22 %) and technical support (11 %). Conclusion/innovation: Educators perceive VR as a potential supplemental tool in difficult communication education; however, overcoming financial, training, and integration barriers is essential for its broader adoption and curricular integration. Further research is necessary to validate VR's effectiveness in developing the nuanced communication skills critical for serious illness communication. Innovation: VR technology is a promising innovative tool for medical communication training.
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.