Background
In medical education, new technologies like Virtual Reality (VR) are increasingly integrated to enhance digital learning. Originally used to train surgical procedures, now use cases also cover emergency scenarios and non-technical skills like clinical decision-making. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of VR in medical education, including requirements, advantages, disadvantages, as well as evaluation methods and respective study results to establish a foundation for future VR integration into medical curricula.
Methods
This review follows the updated JBI methodology for scoping reviews and adheres to the respective PRISMA extension. We included reviews in English or German language from 2012 to March 2022 that examine the use of VR in education for medical and nursing students, registered nurses, and qualified physicians. Data extraction focused on medical specialties, subjects, curricula, technical/didactic requirements, evaluation methods and study outcomes as well as advantages and disadvantages of VR.
Results
A total of 763 records were identified. After eligibility assessment, 69 studies were included. Nearly half of them were published between 2021 and 2022, predominantly from high-income countries. Most reviews focused on surgical training in laparoscopic and minimally invasive procedures (43.5%) and included studies with qualified physicians as participants (43.5%). Technical, didactic and organisational requirements were highlighted and evaluations covering performance time and quality, skills acquisition and validity, often showed positive outcomes. Accessibility, repeatability, cost-effectiveness, and improved skill development were reported as advantages, while financial challenges, technical limitations, lack of scientific evidence, and potential user discomfort were cited as disadvantages.
Discussion
Despite a high potential of VR in medical education, there are mandatory requirements for its integration into medical curricula addressing challenges related to finances, technical limitations, and didactic aspects. The reported lack of standardised and validated guidelines for evaluating VR training must be overcome to enable high-quality evidence for VR usage in medical education. Interdisciplinary teams of software developers, AI experts, designers, medical didactics experts and end users are required to design useful VR courses. Technical issues and compromised realism can be mitigated by further technological advancements.
