Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb 1;24(2):e30082.
doi: 10.2196/30082.

Learning Outcomes of Immersive Technologies in Health Care Student Education: Systematic Review of the Literature

Grace V Ryan #  1 , Shauna Callaghan  1 , Anthony Rafferty  1 , Mary F Higgins  1 , Eleni Mangina  2 , Fionnuala McAuliffe  1
Affiliations

Learning Outcomes of Immersive Technologies in Health Care Student Education: Systematic Review of the Literature

Grace V Ryan et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: There is a lack of evidence in the literature regarding the learning outcomes of immersive technologies as educational tools for teaching university-level health care students.

Objective: The aim of this review is to assess the learning outcomes of immersive technologies compared with traditional learning modalities with regard to knowledge and the participants' learning experience in medical, midwifery, and nursing preclinical university education.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Randomized controlled trials comparing traditional learning methods with virtual, augmented, or mixed reality for the education of medicine, nursing, or midwifery students were evaluated. The identified studies were screened by 2 authors independently. Disagreements were discussed with a third reviewer. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) in April 2020.

Results: Of 15,627 studies, 29 (0.19%) randomized controlled trials (N=2722 students) were included and evaluated using the MERSQI tool. Knowledge gain was found to be equal when immersive technologies were compared with traditional learning modalities; however, the learning experience increased with immersive technologies. The mean MERSQI score was 12.64 (SD 1.6), the median was 12.50, and the mode was 13.50. Immersive technology was predominantly used to teach clinical skills (15/29, 52%), and virtual reality (22/29, 76%) was the most commonly used form of immersive technology. Knowledge was the primary outcome in 97% (28/29) of studies. Approximately 66% (19/29) of studies used validated instruments and scales to assess secondary learning outcomes, including satisfaction, self-efficacy, engagement, and perceptions of the learning experience. Of the 29 studies, 19 (66%) included medical students (1706/2722, 62.67%), 8 (28%) included nursing students (727/2722, 26.71%), and 2 (7%) included both medical and nursing students (289/2722, 10.62%). There were no studies involving midwifery students. The studies were based on the following disciplines: anatomy, basic clinical skills and history-taking skills, neurology, respiratory medicine, acute medicine, dermatology, communication skills, internal medicine, and emergency medicine.

Conclusions: Virtual, augmented, and mixed reality play an important role in the education of preclinical medical and nursing university students. When compared with traditional educational modalities, the learning gain is equal with immersive technologies. Learning outcomes such as student satisfaction, self-efficacy, and engagement all increase with the use of immersive technology, suggesting that it is an optimal tool for education.

Keywords: Augmented Reality; Learning Outcomes; Medical Education; Midwifery Education; Mixed Reality; Nursing Education; Systematic Review; Virtual Reality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 flow diagram adapted for this study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Peterson DC, Mlynarczyk GS. Analysis of traditional versus three-dimensional augmented curriculum on anatomical learning outcome measures. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9(6):529–36. doi: 10.1002/ase.1612. doi: 10.1002/ase.1612. - DOI - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jin J, Bridges SM. Educational technologies in problem-based learning in health sciences education: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(12):e251. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3240. http://www.jmir.org/2014/12/e251/ v16i12e251 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mangina E. 3D learning objects for augmented/virtual reality educational ecosystems. 2017 23rd International Conference on Virtual System & Multimedia; VSMM'17; Octover 31-November 4, 2017; Dublin. IEEE; 2017. pp. 1–6. - DOI
    1. Bell JT, Fogler HS. The investigation and application of virtual reality as an educational tool. 1995 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference; ASEE'95; June 25-28, 1995; Anahein. 1995.
    1. Salzman MC, Dede C, Loftin RB, Chen J. A model for understanding how virtual reality aids complex conceptual learning. Presence (Camb) 1999;8(3):293–316. doi: 10.1162/105474699566242. - DOI

Publication types