Presentation Description
Atsushi Tanikawa1
Ryo Sagisaka2, Koshi Nakagawa3 and Shoji Yokobori4
1 Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Tohoku University Hospital
2 Department of Integrated Science and Engineering for Sustainable Societies, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Chuo University
3 Department of Emergency Medical System, Graduate School, Kokushikan University
4 Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Nippon Medical School
Ryo Sagisaka2, Koshi Nakagawa3 and Shoji Yokobori4
1 Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Tohoku University Hospital
2 Department of Integrated Science and Engineering for Sustainable Societies, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Chuo University
3 Department of Emergency Medical System, Graduate School, Kokushikan University
4 Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Nippon Medical School
Background:
Virtual reality (VR) has potential for effective learning in medical education. There are increasing reports of simulation and procedures education using VR. Compared to conventional two-dimensional (2D) videos, however, the effects of VR in medical education are not clear. This study aims to compare VR and 2D videos on distance learning of live-action Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) in initial trauma care and to examine psychological learning effects such as self-efficacy and comprehension.
Virtual reality (VR) has potential for effective learning in medical education. There are increasing reports of simulation and procedures education using VR. Compared to conventional two-dimensional (2D) videos, however, the effects of VR in medical education are not clear. This study aims to compare VR and 2D videos on distance learning of live-action Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) in initial trauma care and to examine psychological learning effects such as self-efficacy and comprehension.
Methods:
We conducted a randomized controlled trial using distance learning. Eligible participants for inclusion were fourth- to sixth-year medical students and first- and second-year residents in five medical schools and university hospitals. We conducted stratified randomization by institution and participants were assigned to 2D and VR groups. Participants attended approximately 30 minutes of remote lectures on initial trauma care and watched live- action FAST practices in the emergency room in 2D or VR. Primary outcomes were self- efficacy, intrinsic value and emotional engagement to assess learning effectiveness. Multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between VR use and outcomes.
We conducted a randomized controlled trial using distance learning. Eligible participants for inclusion were fourth- to sixth-year medical students and first- and second-year residents in five medical schools and university hospitals. We conducted stratified randomization by institution and participants were assigned to 2D and VR groups. Participants attended approximately 30 minutes of remote lectures on initial trauma care and watched live- action FAST practices in the emergency room in 2D or VR. Primary outcomes were self- efficacy, intrinsic value and emotional engagement to assess learning effectiveness. Multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between VR use and outcomes.
Results:
Sixty-four participants were eligible for analysis (2D, n = 33; VR, n = 31). There were no significant differences in participant characteristics; however, the median pre-test score for measuring medical knowledge differed by two points (2D, 20.0; VR, 18.0). In multiple regression analysis to evaluate the association between VR and outcomes, all outcomes showed no significant association (B, -0.62, 0.44, 0.98; 95% CI, -5.62 to 4.38, -2.72 to 3.59, -2.12, 4.08; p-value, 0.80, 0.78, 0.53, self-efficacy, endogenous value and emotional engagement, respectively).
Sixty-four participants were eligible for analysis (2D, n = 33; VR, n = 31). There were no significant differences in participant characteristics; however, the median pre-test score for measuring medical knowledge differed by two points (2D, 20.0; VR, 18.0). In multiple regression analysis to evaluate the association between VR and outcomes, all outcomes showed no significant association (B, -0.62, 0.44, 0.98; 95% CI, -5.62 to 4.38, -2.72 to 3.59, -2.12, 4.08; p-value, 0.80, 0.78, 0.53, self-efficacy, endogenous value and emotional engagement, respectively).
Conclusion:
We evaluated VR use and psychological learning effects in distance learning of FAST in initial trauma care. In this study, using VR was not significantly associated with learning effectiveness.
We evaluated VR use and psychological learning effects in distance learning of FAST in initial trauma care. In this study, using VR was not significantly associated with learning effectiveness.