Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42558124›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical extended reality2024

Describing, Evaluating, and Exploring Barriers to Adoption of Virtual Reality: An International Modified Delphi Consensus Study Involving Clinicians, Educators, and Industry Professionals.

Jonathan R Abbas, Eric Gantwerker, Mark Volk, Tony Payton, Brendan A McGrath, Neil Tolley, Rachel Isba, Iain A Bruce

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical extended reality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jonathan R AbbasThe University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7870-2980
Eric GantwerkerDonald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1309-9188
Mark VolkDepartment of Paediatric ORL, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Tony PaytonThe University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Brendan A McGrathThe University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Neil TolleyImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Rachel IsbaAlder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Iain A BruceThe University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the rising interest in extended reality technology, the literature base is rapidly growing. With this growth, confusion within the descriptive terminology, and incoherence in the methodological approach to training tool evaluation exists. Additionally, the development expectations of the health care worker, educator, and academic are not clear. This study aimed to work toward consensus agreement around four key areas of interest: (1) descriptive terminology (2) evaluation methodology (3) research outcome measure selection, and (4) barriers and facilitators to adoption of VR into health care education. This study was an international, electronic, Modified Delphi Consensus study, which ran over two rounds. Systematic literature review, ratified by a multidisciplinary study advisory group, and combined with Delphi round, one participant responses generated a total of 133 propositions across all areas of interest. In two rounds of a Delphi process, consensus was reached for a total of 102 propositions of which 49 were included, and 53 excluded, with the remaining 31 propositions not reaching consensus. Fifteen terms were deemed important when describing VR technology with 'virtual environment', 'interactive', and 'simulation' achieving the highest levels of agreement. There was almost unanimous agreement that technology should be described by its interplay between the hardware and software involved in a system and that educational outcome retention should be measured when evaluating VR training. High-cost was the most important prohibitive barrier to VR uptake with easy access to content and low maintenance effort being most attractive factors. This study represents a first step toward international consensus around how to describe VR technology, how to approach VR educational evaluation including selection of appropriate research outcome measures, the most important barriers to technology adoption and design considerations that facilitate technology adoption into health care education.

Indexed as

digital literacyeducationmedical educationVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID42558124
PMCPMC13390693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.