Acceptance of Virtual Reality in Trainees Using a Technology Acceptance Model: Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Virtual reality (VR) technologies have demonstrated therapeutic usefulness across a variety of health care settings. However, graduate medical education (GME) trainee perspectives on VR acceptability and usability are limited. The behavioral intentions of GME trainees with regard to VR as an anxiolytic tool have not been characterized through a theoretical framework of technology adoption. Objective: The primary aim of this study was to apply a hybrid Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and a United Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model to evaluate factors that predict the behavioral intentions of GME trainees to use VR for patient anxiolysis. The secondary aim was to assess the reliability of the TAM-UTAUT. Methods: Participants were surveyed in June 2023. GME trainees participated in a VR experience used to reduce perioperative anxiety. Participants then completed a survey evaluating demographics, perceptions, attitudes, environmental factors, and behavioral intentions that influence the adoption of new technologies. Results: In total, 202 of 1540 GME trainees participated. Only 198 participants were included in the final analysis (12.9% participation rate). Perceptions of usefulness, ease of use, and enjoyment; social influence; and facilitating conditions predicted intention to use VR. Age, past use, price willing to pay, and curiosity were less strong predictors of intention to use. All confirmatory factor analysis models demonstrated a good fit. All domain measurements demonstrated acceptable reliability. Conclusions: This TAM-UTAUT demonstrated validity and reliability for predicting the behavioral intentions of GME trainees to use VR as a therapeutic anxiolytic in clinical practice. Social influence and facilitating conditions are modifiable factors that present opportunities to advance VR adoption, such as fostering exposure to new technologies and offering relevant training and social encouragement. Future investigations should study the model's reliability within specialties in different geographic locations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".