Abstract
PurposeWe developed a virtual reality (VR) endotracheal intubation training that applied 2 interaction modalities (hand-tracking or controllers). It aimed to investigate the differences in usability between using hand tracking and controllers during the VR intervention for intubation training for medical students from February 2021 to March 2021 in Thailand.MethodsForty-five participants were divided into 3 groups: video only, video with VR controller training, and video with VR hand tracking training. Pre-test, post-test, and practice scores were used to assess learning outcomes. The System Usability Scale (SUS) and User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire (USEQ) questionnaires were used to evaluate the differences between the VR groups. The sample comprised 45 medical students (undergraduate) who were taking part in clinical training at Walailak University in Thailand.ResultsThe overall learning outcomes of both VR groups were better than those of the video group. The post-test scores (P=0.581) and practice scores (P=0.168) of both VR groups were not significantly different. Similarly, no significant between-group differences were found in the SUS scores (P=0.588) or in any aspects of the USEQ scores.ConclusionVR enhanced medical training. Interactions using hand tracking or controllers were not significantly different in terms of the outcomes measured in this study. The results and interviews provided a better understanding of support learning and training, which will be further improved and developed to create a self-learning VR medical training system in the future.
Highlights
Background/rationale Virtual reality (VR) is commonly used to enhance practitioners’learning and engagement
The present study aimed to investigate the differences in VR intubation training as a case study to explore the differences between using controllers (Figs. 1–4) and hand tracking (Fig. 5) for learning in VR (Figs. 6, 7)
When using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) post hoc test, we found the following pairwise P-values: video versus VR controllers, P= 0.012; video versus VR hand tracking, P= 0.043; and VR controllers versus VR hand tracking, P= 0.581
Summary
Background/rationale Virtual reality (VR) is commonly used to enhance practitioners’learning and engagement. Learning by doing is the most effective method to understand lessons; it is not feasible to make. Lesson’s content to see how its elements work and are more likely to engage in the lesson experientially. VR provides an opportunity to learn by interacting with lessons instead of passively reading or listening to experts. The widespread use of simulation training is based on patient safety concerns, focusing on improving the quality of medical services and clinical outcomes. Several studies have shown that learning in VR simulations was more effective than traditional clinical training [2,3,4]. It has been reported that practice using VR simulations improved medical students’ learning in many domains [5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
