A comparative study of the use of extended reality simulation in neonatal resuscitation training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 360° video and virtual reality (VR) simulation may offer innovative opportunities as portable simulation-based technologies to enhance Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) training, updates, and refreshers. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of 360° video with VR simulation in NRP training and the effect on NRP learning outcomes. METHODS: Thirty (N = 30) NRP providers were randomly assigned to either VR simulation or 360° video study groups (n = 15 each) with pre and posttests of confidence, posttests of user satisfaction, usefulness, presence, and simulator sickness, and a performance demonstration of positive pressure ventilation (PPV) on a manikin-simulator. Participants were then exposed to the other condition and again post-tested. RESULTS: Both systems were positively viewed. However, participants reported significantly higher perceptions of usefulness in enhancing learning and increased sense of presence with the VR simulation. VR simulation participants gained more confidence in certain NRP skills, such as proper mask placement (adjusted p-value 0.038) and newborn response evaluation (adjusted p-value 0.017). A blinded assessment of PPV skills showed participants exposed to VR performed significantly better in providing effective PPV (adjusted p-value 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: NRP providers found both systems useful; however, VR simulation was more helpful in improving learning performance and enhancing learning. Participants reported an increased feeling of presence and confidence in certain areas with VR and performed better on a crucial NRP skill, providing effective PPV. VR technologies may offer an alternative modality for increasing access to standardized and portable refresher learning opportunities on NRP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".