No abstract

Background Patient simulators are an increasingly important part of medical training. They have been shown to be effective in teaching procedural skills, medical knowledge, and clinical decision-making. Recently, virtual and augmented reality simulators are being produced, but there is no research on whether these more realistic experiences cause problematic and greater stress responses as compared to standard manikin simulators. Objective The purpose of this research is to examine the psychological and physiological effects of augmented reality (AR) in medical simulation training as compared to traditional manikin simulations. Methods A within-subjects experimental design was used to assess the responses of medical students (N=89) as they completed simulated (using either manikin or AR) pediatric resuscitations. Baseline measures of psychological well-being, salivary cortisol, and galvanic skin response (GSR) were taken before the simulations began. Continuous GSR assessments throughout and after the simulations were captured along with follow-up measures of emotion and cortisol. Participants also wrote freely about their experience with each simulation, and narratives were coded for emotional word use. Results Of the total 86 medical students who participated, 37 (43%) were male and 49 (57%) were female, with a mean age of 25.2 (SD 2.09, range 22-30) years and 24.7 (SD 2.08, range 23-36) years, respectively. GSR was higher in the manikin group adjusted for day, sex, and medications taken by the participants (AR-manikin: –0.11, 95% CI –0.18 to –0.03; P=.009). The difference in negative affect between simulation types was not statistically significant (AR-manikin: 0.41, 95% CI –0.72 to 1.53; P=.48). There was no statistically significant difference between simulation types in self-reported stress (AR-manikin: 0.53, 95% CI –2.35 to 3.42; P=.71) or simulation stress (AR-manikin: –2.17, 95% CI –6.94 to 2.59; P=.37). The difference in percentage of positive emotion words used to describe the experience was not statistically significant between simulation types, which were adjusted for day of experiment, sex of the participants, and total number of words used (AR-manikin: –4.0, 95% CI –0.91 to 0.10; P=.12). There was no statistically significant difference between simulation types in terms of the percentage of negative emotion words used to describe the experience (AR-manikin: –0.33, 95% CI –1.12 to 0.46; P=.41), simulation sickness (AR-manikin: 0.17, 95% CI –0.29 to 0.62; P=.47), or salivary cortisol (AR-manikin: 0.04, 95% CI –0.05 to 0.13; P=.41). Finally, preexisting levels of posttraumatic stress disorder, perceived stress, and reported depression were not tied to physiological responses to AR. Conclusions AR simulators elicited similar stress responses to currently used manikin-based simulators, and we did not find any evidence of AR simulators causing excessive stress to participants. Therefore, AR simulators are a promising tool to be used in medical training, which can provide more emotionally realistic scenarios without the risk of additional harm.

BACKGROUND Smartphones are often vilified for negatively influencing well-being and contributing to stress. However, these devices may, in fact, be useful in times of stress and, in particular, aid in stress recovery. Mobile apps that deliver evidence-based techniques for stress reduction, such as heart rate variability biofeedback (HRVB) training, hold promise as convenient, accessible, and effective stress-reducing tools. Numerous mobile health apps that may potentially aid in stress recovery are available, but very few have demonstrated that they can influence health-related physiological stress parameters (eg, salivary biomarkers of stress). The ability to recover swiftly from stress and reduce physiological arousal is particularly important for long-term health, and thus, it is imperative that evidence is provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of stress-reducing mobile health apps in this context. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this research was to investigate the physiological and psychological effects of using a smartphone app for HRVB training following a stressful experience. The efficacy of the gamified Breather component of the Happify mobile health app was examined in an experimental setting. METHODS In this study, participants (N=140) underwent a laboratory stressor and were randomly assigned to recover in one of three ways: with no phone present, with a phone present, with the HRBV game. Those in the <italic>no phone</italic> condition had no access to their phone. Those in the <italic>phone present</italic> condition had their phone but did not use it. Those in the <italic>HRVB game</italic> condition used the serious game Breather on the Happify app. Stress recovery was assessed via repeated measures of salivary alpha amylase, cortisol, and self-reported acute stress (on a 1-100 scale). RESULTS Participants in the <italic>HRVB game</italic> condition had significantly lower levels of salivary alpha amylase during recovery than participants in the other conditions (F_2,133=3.78, <italic>P</italic>=.03). There were no significant differences among the conditions during recovery for salivary cortisol levels or self-reported stress. CONCLUSIONS These results show that engaging in a brief HRVB training session on a smartphone reduces levels of salivary alpha amylase following a stressful experience, providing preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of Breather in improving physiological stress recovery. Given the known ties between stress recovery and future well-being, this study provides a possible mechanism by which gamified biofeedback apps may lead to better health.