MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413744133 · doi:10.1007/s44217-025-00771-5

Virtual reality training programs in disaster preparedness: a systematic review

2025· article· en· W4413744133 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)PreparednessVirtual realityDisaster preparednessComputer scienceEmergency managementMedical educationHuman–computer interactionPolitical scienceMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The demand for effective disaster preparedness training in hospitals is steadily increasing, as healthcare staff need to handle emergencies efficiently while providing patient care. However, conventional training methods like live drills and tabletop exercises can require significant resources, limit participation, and disrupt hospital operations. In light of these challenges, Virtual Reality (VR) training has emerged as a modern solution, offering an innovative way to improve training efficiency without interfering with routine hospital activities. This study, therefore, examines how VR training compares to traditional methods in preparing hospital personnel for disasters, focusing specifically on effectiveness and cost. We reviewed studies concerning the effectiveness and economic assessments of VR compared to traditional methods. To answer the research questions, we followed the Canada Drug Agency’s guides on conducting a health technology assessment. Articles were identified from both peer-reviewed and gray literature. The review highlights eight pertinent studies demonstrating VR’s advantages, including boosting knowledge retention, performance, and overall confidence among healthcare professionals in disaster preparedness. Furthermore, the economic analysis indicates that although the initial costs of VR synchronous training may be higher, the long-term savings from reduced ongoing training and maintenance can lead to greater cost efficiency. In addition, while VR training presents safety benefits, challenges such as cybersickness and accessibility concerns have also been observed. VR training offers considerable advantages over traditional disaster preparedness methods and significantly improves healthcare workers’ confidence and skills. Despite the high upfront costs, the potential long-term financial benefits appear promising. To maximize results, funding for VR initiatives must emphasize demonstrated effectiveness alongside ongoing research to explore broader applications and address the challenges posed by these emerging technologies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it