Advanced search

Search results      


Efficacy of Virtual Reality Programs versus Traditional Lectures on Osteopathic Medicine Information Retention

Journal: Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Date: 2023/12, 123(12):Pages: A19-A20. doi: Subito , type of study: cross sectional study

Full text    (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jom-2023-2000/html)

Keywords:

cross sectional study [597]
medical students [402]
osteopathic medicine [1540]
USA [1086]
virtual learning [6]

Abstract:

Statement of Significance: Virtual Reality (VR) has demonstrated efficacy in teaching anatomy and for surgical cases (Samadbeik et al., 2018). However, there are limited studies on the use of VR in helping students memorize information, especially in Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine; one such topic is Chapman reflex points (CRP). This study analyzes the effectiveness of VR in helping retain information compared to a traditional lecture (TL) among OMM-Naïve (OMM-N) and Third-year Osteopathic Medical Students (OMS-III). To identify differences in the efficacy of virtual reality (VR) modules versus traditional lecture (TL) in helping OMM-naïve (OMM-N) and third year Osteopathic Medical Students (OMS-III) to retain information. Research Methods: A VR OMM module was designed using Unity development software for CRPs. The module provides audio prompts to identify CRPs from different body systems. Subjects were recruited via fliers and announcements throughout the the campus. All participants were required to complete a pre-screening survey before participating in the study to ensure they could tolerate a VR environment. Inclusion criteria involved being a medical student at NYITCOM or an undergraduate student at NYIT. Exclusion criteria for the study involved subjects who are not in good academic standing, subjects who are repeating the first-year curriculum, subjects who get extremely motion sick, subjects who have any neurologic or vestibular issues or have any recent experiences (i.e., head injuries) that affect their balance or gait, and if they cannot tolerate flashing or intense light as well as any previous severe adverse events while using VR. Each participant used a VR module and a TL to learn different CRPs and was then given a quiz on the corresponding CRPs, thus, allowing for a comparison between the efficacy of VR versus TL. The VR module covered a total of ten CRPs. The TL covered ten different CRPs. After completing the VR module and TL, subjects completed two separate 6-question quiz on the CRPs they learned using either modality. To assess the quality of the VR module, participants completed a validated “Reduced Instructional Materials Motivation Survey” (RIMMS) survey, a 12-item inventory that assesses motivation when using an educational tool (Wang et al., 2020). The Mann-Whitney U test assessed differences in RIMMS scores between OMM-N and OMS-III. A paired t-test compared the quiz results between VR and TL, and an independent t-test compared the overall quiz results between OMM-N and OMS-III. This Osteopathic contribution of the current study is that it provides information on the effectiveness of VR in memorizing and retaining information related to Osteopathic Medicine. Data Analysis: A total of 26 subjects (17 OMM-N and 8 OMS-III) were eligible to participate in the study after completing the pre-screening survey; however, only 17 subjects (9 OMM-N and 8 OMS-III) fully completed the VR module and the quiz and RIMMS. The mean score for attention was 3.93 +/- 1.27 among OMM-N and 4.29 +/- 0.624 among OMS-III. The mean score for relevance was 3.96 +/- 1.28 among OMM-N and 4.21 +/- 0.78 among OMS-III. The mean score for confidence was 3.67 +/- 1.54 among OMM-N and 4.50 +/- 0.659 among OMS-III. The mean score for satisfaction was 3.82 +/- 1.642 among OMM-N and 4.375 +/- 0.647 among OMS-III. The Mann-Whitney U test showed no statistically significant difference between OMM-N and OMS-III participants in attention (p = 0.60), relevance (p = 0.88), confidence (p = 0.073), and satisfaction (p = 0.83). The paired t-test showed a statistically significant increase in VR score compared to TL score for the quiz (p = 0.047). The independent t-test showed no significant difference in VR and TL scores between OMM-N and OMS-III participants. Participants were also asked which modality they liked better, and 78% (7/9) of OMM-N and 87% of OMS-III (7/8) said that they preferred the VR module over the TL. Conclusion: VR is a powerful tool in education with many uses. The current study assesses the effectiveness of VR in helping students retain information. The RIMMS showed that both OMM-N and OMS-III participants were overall satisfied with the VR program in teaching them about CRPs, and it helped them become more confident in the subject matter. In addition, the CRP VR module was also able to keep the subjects’ attention, and participants felt that the subject matter being taught was overall relevant to their needs. The quiz results showed that scores after the VR module were higher than scores after the TL. More research must be done because the current study has a small sample size and cannot claim that a statistical significance in the current sample size will translate to a statistically significant result in the overall population of medical students. However, a majority of the students said that they preferred the VR module over the TL modality in order to learn about CRPs. Students were also asked for a reason for their choice between VR versus TL. Participants that picked TL said that the technical difficulties and the new environment created by VR were jarring for them. Participants that picked VR claimed that VR helped them visualize the information better and was more interactive overall, thus providing a better environment to learn. Future studies should involve more subjects and can also increase the number of CRPs being taught and the number of questions on the quiz.


Search results      

 
 
 






  • ImpressumLegal noticeDatenschutz


ostlib.de/data_nvekpfyjdtrbmuchgawz



Supported by

OSTLIB recommends