Comparing Virtual Reality Trauma Training Across Diverse Clinical Backgrounds: A Mixed-Methods Study in Canada And India
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: Virtual reality (VR) simulation is increasingly used in trauma training as it offers an immersive, cost-effective alternative to traditional simulation; however, its impact may differ between low- and high-resource settings due to resource and training disparities. This study aims to assess the technology acceptance, effectiveness, usability, acceptability and confidence gains of a VR-based pediatric trauma training module in India and Canada, correlating demographics and prior experience to learning outcomes and cybersickness. DESIGN: A prospective quasi-experimental study was done. Participants completed assessments using the Technology Acceptance Model (assessing perceived usefulness, ease of use, and intention to adopt VR), System Usability Scale, VR Sickness Questionnaire, and a confidence survey. SETTING: Participants attended a virtual reality trauma training course. These courses were held at McGill University's Steinberg Center for Simulation and Interactive Learning, Canada in May and August 2024 and at the Christian Medical College Ludhiana, India in December 2024. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty participants aged 25-35 years old (paramedics, medical officers, nurses, emergency technicians, and medical students) participated in a VR-based pediatric trauma training simulation module in India (n = 27) and Canada (n = 33). RESULTS: 67% of participants had no VR experience and 48% had no previous trauma training. No significant interactions were seen by gender, age, or prior VR use. Novices without trauma training reported higher TAM scores in all categories. The SUS and VRSQ scores did not differ by prior trauma training. Confidence gains before and after simulation were significantly lower in the group with prior trauma training (p < 0.001). While previous VR experience was similar in both Canada and India (33%), formal simulation training was reported by 85% of Canadians, but only by 11.1% of Indians (p ≤ 0.0001). The mean perceived usefulness of the module was also much higher for Indians than for Canadians (82% vs. 65.6%, respectively; p ≤ 0.0011), while the mean ease of use scores were 57.8% and 70.4% (p ≤ 0.0201), respectively. Confidence in trauma management increased by 14.4% in Canada and by 30.6% in India (p ≤ 0.0001). The higher rate of usefulness, ease-of-use, and confidence increase in India suggest VR had a greater impact in that setting. CONCLUSION: VR is a feasible and accepted tool for pediatric trauma training, with the greatest benefit seen in resource-limited settings and among novices. Minimal cybersickness supports its use as an adjunct to standard methods. VR may help address gaps in trauma education, especially where prior simulation experience is limited.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».