背景:在医学教育中,虚拟现实(VR)等新技术越来越多地集成以增强数字学习。最初用于训练外科手术,现在的用例还包括紧急情况和非技术技能,如临床决策。这篇范围审查旨在概述VR在医学教育中的应用,包括要求,优势,缺点,以及评估方法和各自的研究结果,为未来VR融入医学课程奠定基础。
方法:本审查遵循更新的JBI范围审查方法,并遵守各自的PRISMA扩展。我们纳入了2012年至2022年3月的英语或德语评论,以检查VR在医学和护理学生教育中的使用情况。注册护士,和合格的医生。数据提取集中在医学专业,主题,课程,技术/教学要求,评估方法和研究结果以及VR的优缺点。
结果:共确定了763条记录。资格评估后,共纳入69项研究。其中近一半在2021年至2022年期间出版,主要来自高收入国家。大多数评论集中在腹腔镜和微创手术的手术培训(43.5%),并包括以合格医师为参与者的研究(43.5%)。技术,强调了教学和组织要求,并对表演时间和质量进行了评估,技能获取和有效性,经常表现出积极的结果。可访问性,重复性,成本效益,和改进的技能发展被报道为优势,在财务挑战的同时,技术限制,缺乏科学证据,和潜在的用户不适被认为是缺点。
结论:尽管VR在医学教育中具有很高的潜力,将其纳入医学课程有强制性要求,以解决与财务相关的挑战,技术限制,和说教方面。据报道,缺乏评估VR培训的标准化和验证指南必须克服,以便为VR在医学教育中的使用提供高质量的证据。软件开发人员的跨学科团队,AI专家,设计师,医学教学专家和最终用户需要设计有用的VR课程。技术问题和妥协的现实主义可以通过进一步的技术进步来缓解。
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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.