ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Acceptance and feasibility of virtual reality for teaching adult basic life support in older populations.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Immersive Virtual Reality for Patient Education in Orthodontics: Cross-Sectional Feasibility and Acceptability Study.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Virtual reality (VR) is emerging in adult Basic Life Support (BLS) training, but its acceptance among older adults has not been fully studied. This study aimed to develop expert-informed BLS content for both VR and laptop formats, and to evaluate the feasibility, usability, knowledge acquisition, satisfaction, and cybersickness of these platforms among older adult learners. Methods: A two-phase mixed-methods study was conducted. Five experts co-developed and validated a VR/laptop-compatible adult BLS scenario based on the 2021 European Resuscitation Council guidelines. This scenario was then tested by older adults who voluntarily participated in either VR- or laptop-based training at a public technology event in Spain. Post-training, we measured knowledge acquisition, usability, satisfaction, user experience, and cybersickness. Comparative statistics and regression analyses were performed to evaluate learning outcomes and predictors. Results: Five experts developed a consensus-based adult BLS decision tree with 10 scenes and six questions. A total of 583 adults (mean age 72.3 ± 4.8 years) took part in the BLS training evaluation. Those in the VR group (n = 415) outperformed those in the laptop group (n = 168) in key steps, including initiating CPR (58 % vs 41 %, p < 0.001) and using an AED (49 % vs 23 %, p < 0.001). VR participants rated usability of VR-training as excellent (73.8 ± 4.2), expressed high satisfaction and realism. Cybersickness was low (13.1 %). VR training predicted higher knowledge scores (β = 5.8, p < 0.001), and increased scores by 5.8 points over laptop training. VR participants were 2.3 times more likely to answer BLS questions correctly (OR = 2.3, 95 % CI: 1.6-3.2, p < 0.001). Conclusion: VR could improve adult BLS knowledge in older adults, with high levels of acceptance and positive user experience. Future work should enhance accessibility and reduce discomfort.
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.