Developing Stethoscope Replicas for Cardiac Auscultation Training: A Comparison Between Virtual Reality, Mobile, and Makerspace

Ortegon-Sarmiento, Tatiana; Vargas-Orjuela, Mario; Uribe-Quevedo, Álvaro; Rojas, David; Kapralos, Bill; Jaimes, Norman; Perez-Gutierrez, Byron

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-63464-3_43

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Virtual Reality Performed Better Four of the 15 studies (26%) demonstrated that VR resulted in better learner outcomes than traditional simulation. [14][15][16][17] Gonzalez and colleagues 14 conducted a RCT with 59 nursing students to compare simulation with a mannequin to a simulation with AR in the context of neurological assessment. The AR involved projected images of facial expressions onto a specialized mannequin.…”

Section: Results Of Individual Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 In addition, learners felt that the AR mannequin was more realistic ( P = 0.046) and led to a higher sense of urgency ( P = 0.002). 14 Ortegon-Sarmiento and colleagues 15 sought to compare the following 3 modalities: immersive VR, touch-based tablet, and a simulation mannequin for cardiac auscultation training. Sixteen third-and fourth-year medical students were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 groups and given a preknowledge and postknowledge test.…”

Section: Results Of Individual Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison of Virtual Reality to Traditional Simulation in Health Professions Education

Foronda,

Gonzalez,

Meese

et al. 2023

Sim Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the increasing availability of virtual reality (VR) and its lower overall costs of use, the objective of this review was to compare VR to traditional simulation in terms of learning outcomes. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (a) research study (of any design), (b) focused on learners in health professions, and (c) compared VR with traditional simulation. Studies were excluded for the following reasons: (a) not a research study, (b) focused on learners outside health professions, (c) used screen-based or computer-based simulation, (d) used a task trainer, and (e) did not involve a comparison of VR to traditional simulation. The searches were run on November 11 and 12, 2021, in CINAHL via EBSCO, Ovid Embase, ERIC via EBSCO, IEEE Xplore, Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines guided the review. A team of researchers applied Kirkpatrick's Levels, Melnyk's Levels of Evidence, and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme guidelines to assess the level of evidence and look for bias. Fifteen studies were reviewed including 11 randomized controlled trials. The lead researcher synthesized the study results into 3 categories: (1) traditional simulation performed better, (2) VR performed better, and (3) comparable outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to endorse one form of simulation (VR or traditional) as more effective at this time. The body of evidence contained too few studies to draw meaningful conclusions to answer the guiding question. The studies covered a large range of modalities, learner groups, and healthcare topics, preventing a meta-analysis. Based on the literature and experience, we recommend that VR experiences be proctored, include debriefing, have a backup plan for cybersickness or myopia, and have time and costs documented. Use of VR is likely to expand; thus, research is needed to inform the best contexts and applications.

show abstract