MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413866291 · doi:10.5539/hes.v15n4p101

The Effectiveness of Virtual Reality in Medical Education: A Meta-Analysis of Knowledge, Skills, and Motivation Outcomes

2025· article· en· W4413866291 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bhibul Hongthong, Thada Jantakoon, Somsuk Trisupakitti

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisPsychologyKnowledge levelVirtual realityHigher educationMedical educationKnowledge managementApplied psychologyMathematics educationComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Virtual reality (VR) technology has emerged as a promising educational tool in medical training, offering immersive learning experiences that address traditional limitations in medical education. However, comprehensive evidence regarding VR's overall effectiveness across diverse medical education contexts remains fragmented. To systematically evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality interventions compared to traditional educational methods in medical education through meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies. A systematic literature search was conducted across Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and ERIC databases from January 2015 to December 2024. Studies involving medical students, residents, or healthcare professionals using VR-based educational interventions with traditional comparison groups were included. Primary outcomes included knowledge acquisition, skills development, and motivation measures. Standardized mean differences (Cohen's d) were calculated using fixed-effects models, with subgroup analyses by outcome type. Twenty-one studies encompassing 1,527 participants met the inclusion criteria. The overall meta-analysis revealed a moderate to significant positive effect favoring VR interventions (d = 0.510, 95% CI: 0.408 to 0.612, p < .001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated differential effectiveness: skills outcomes showed the most significant effect (d = 0.692, p < .001), knowledge outcomes showed moderate effects (d = 0.346, p < .001), while motivation outcomes showed no significant difference (d = 0.054, p = 0.685). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (I² = 87.06%). This meta-analysis provides robust evidence supporting VR's effectiveness in medical education, particularly for skills development and knowledge acquisition. The differential effects suggest VR's strength in enhancing practical competencies. However, substantial heterogeneity highlights the importance of implementation quality and contextual factors. These findings support the strategic integration of VR technology in medical curricula, especially for procedural training and clinical skills development.

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 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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.394 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207