ArticleJMIR medical education2026
Medical Students' Experiences With Virtual Reality Simulation Training: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2026. 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBeyond its applications in other settings, virtual reality (VR) technology has gained attention in medical education, offering immersive learning experiences. Previous research has demonstrated its potential as an educational tool in medical settings, highlighting enhanced educational outcomes, skill acquisition and retention, standardized training experiences, and the promotion of active learning. However, there is still a dearth of research exploring various aspects of VR user experiences, with most studies focusing on its effect on skill acquisition. Limited qualitative research further hinders an in-depth understanding of user experiences, restricting a comprehensive overview of VR's potential in medical education.
objectiveThis study explored subjective experiences with VR simulation training and its perceived benefits and challenges among medical students in the United Kingdom, using the 5 domains of the Immersive Technology Evaluation Measure (ITEM).
methodsIn July 2024, 15- to 20-minute in-person interviews were conducted with 11 medical students who had completed the immersive VR training consisting of the assessment and treatment of a virtual patient. Guided by the 5 domains of the ITEM as preconceived themes, a deductive thematic analysis was used to explore individual experiences with the training, embedded within narrative responses.
resultsFindings aligned with the 5 a priori ITEM domains of system usability, immersion, motivation, cognitive load, and debriefing. Within these predefined domains, new subthemes emerged that enhanced the understanding of user experience. Participants reported usability barriers involving accessibility, technical issues, and limited variability in scenarios. Immersion was generally strong due to realistic environments, although reduced interactivity constrained authenticity. Motivation was reflected in active engagement and a greater sense of preparedness for clinical practice. Cognitive load was associated with divided attention, physical effects, and a need for clearer guidance and familiarization. Ultimately, participants valued debriefing sessions as valuable opportunities for reflection and reinforcing knowledge.
conclusionsVR training fosters immersion and motivation, but its effectiveness depends on balancing technical usability with cognitive demands. Future integration should prioritize design variability and structured debriefing to optimize learning outcomes. Refinement of immersive VR training in clinical education is also warranted, alongside further research in broader contexts and longitudinal use.
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.