Cargando…

Virtual reality as a teaching method for resuscitation training in undergraduate first year medical students: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality is an innovative technology for medical education associated with high empirical realism. Therefore, this study compares a conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training with a Virtual Reality (VR) training aiming to demonstrate: (a) non-inferiority of the VR i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Issleib, Malte, Kromer, Alina, Pinnschmidt, Hans O., Süss-Havemann, Christoph, Kubitz, Jens C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7851931/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33526042
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00836-y
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Virtual reality is an innovative technology for medical education associated with high empirical realism. Therefore, this study compares a conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training with a Virtual Reality (VR) training aiming to demonstrate: (a) non-inferiority of the VR intervention in respect of no flow time and (b) superiority in respect of subjective learning gain. METHODS: In this controlled randomized study first year, undergraduate students were allocated in the intervention group and the control group. Fifty-six participants were randomized to the intervention group and 104 participants to the control group. The intervention group received an individual 35-min VR Basic Life Support (BLS) course and a basic skill training. The control group took part in a “classic” BLS-course with a seminar and a basic skill training. The groups were compared in respect of no flow time in a final 3-min BLS examination (primary outcome) and their learning gain (secondary outcome) assessed with a comparative self-assessment (CSA) using a questionnaire at the beginning and the end of the course. Data analysis was performed with a general linear fixed effects model. RESULTS: The no flow time was significantly shorter in the control group (Mean values: control group 82 s vs. intervention group 93 s; p = 0.000). In the CSA participants of the intervention group had a higher learning gain in 6 out of 11 items of the questionnaire (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A “classic” BLS-course with a seminar and training seems superior to VR in teaching technical skills. However, overall learning gain was higher with VR. Future BLS course-formats should consider the integration of VR technique into the classic CPR training or vice versa, to use the advantage of both teaching techniques. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13049-021-00836-y.