AzTrials
AzTrials

Virtual Reality and Medical EducationNCT04480489

Testing Efficacy of VR in Medical Education

A study testing VR and Traditional in people with Virtual Reality and Medical Education, run by University Health Network, Toronto.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Recent emergence and commercialization of immersive virtual reality (VR) shows great promise in its application to medical education. While the technology is rapidly developing, we don't yet know how we learn in an immersive environment. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 22 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Virtual Reality and Medical Education
What is being tested?
VR and Traditional
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
40 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
28 Aug 2020to 23 Oct 2020
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 22 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Pre-clerkship (year 1 and 2) medical students from the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine.

Who cannot join

  • Any medical students who have had experience visiting Toronto Western Hospital for personal reasons or previous coursework, shadowing, research, or clinical rotations.

Trial locations and contacts

No sites are listed yet.

About this study

Official title: The Efficacy of Immersive 360-degree Video in Improving Spatial Orientation Among Medical Students

Recent emergence and commercialization of immersive virtual reality (VR) shows great promise in its application to medical education. While the technology is rapidly developing, we don't yet know how we learn in an immersive environment. As a result, this study will investigate how medical students at the University of Toronto learn from immersive 360-degree video (i.e. VR) when compared to standard 2D video. The task to learn will be hospital (i.e. Toronto Western Hospital) navigation.

Read the detailed description

The recent emergence and commercialization of immersive virtual reality (VR) shows great promise in its application to medical education. While several surgical, critical care, and procedural 'virtual reality simulators' are described, very few immersive VR experiences that use 360-degree videos have been described (Alakar et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2014). 360-degree video is a form of virtual reality that shows video content in a globe creating a sense of immersion and realism that is not possible in standard 2D-videos. The videos are viewed using a virtual reality headset capable of displaying the 360-degree content. Among the few studies that do describe immersive learning experiences in medical training, very few have explored the modality from a pedagogical perspective (Barsom et al., 2017; Cha et al, 2006). It is still unclear whether learning via an immersive experience through 360-degree videos is better than traditional methods such as 2D videos.

The use of traditional 2D video is quite well established in medical education as it enhances knowledge transfer, communication skills, attitude formation, and appeals to learners with various learning styles (Abraham et al, 2011; de Leng et al., 2007). Videos are commonly used for clinical skills training as they provide standardized and consistent learning experiences (Flores et al., 2010; Knowles et al., 2001). They can also be used as resources for 'just-in-time' learning, where students preview content by watching videos before attending didactic or hands-on sessions. Patient case videos allow for rare clinical scenarios to be available to students in perpetuity (Gagliano, 1988). The use of video has allowed for the delivery of educational content in both asynchronous and synchronous (i.e. live or real-time) formats allowing for streaming of video to distant locations with real-time dialogue at all sites (Bridge et al., 2009; Gandsas et al., 2004). These advantages of video have enabled the rapid expansion of some medical schools to multiple hospitals. As medical students rotate through these sites during their clinical years, they often face the challenge of adjusting to unfamiliar environments. Anecdotal as well as survey feedback from our site suggests that unfamiliarity with a new environment induces anxiety among trainees and may result in some 'false' starts on the first day of the rotations. Furthermore, the unfamiliarity may cause students to get lost and arrive late to their clinical assignments. Current solutions include text-based directions for way-finding and orientation, which are at times are supplemented by photographs and standard 2-dimensional video. The realism of 360-degree videos may provide a sense of direction with better wayfinding skills because it will allow the learner to explore and 'experience' the depicted location. To date, there is no study reported comparing 2D with 360-degree video on wayfinding and the orientation experience for medical students.

The use of video to assist with wayfinding and orientation exists but is not currently reported in the literature. Spofford et al. (2012) conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the utility of standard lecture and 2D video in orienting students to the anesthesia machine and the operating room setup. The orientation 2D video group performed significantly better with higher post-test scores but scored lower on satisfaction as students preferred the traditional lecture. The study did not assess the utility of orientation videos for wayfinding. Furthermore, the efficacy in improving spatial orientation, reducing anxiety, or enhancing the orientation process is not well known.

Hypothesis: 360-degree videos will enhance spatial orientation of medical students by:

  1. Improving way-finding and sense of orientation
  2. Conferring a sense of presence
  3. Increasing level of satisfaction with the learning experience
  4. Decreasing anxiety with a new environment

Methods:

This will be a prospective randomized controlled trial. Pre-clerkship (year 1 and 2) medical students from the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine will be recruited to take part in the study. Participants will complete a baseline questionnaire collecting data quantifying key potentially confounding factors such as previous 360 videos, previous visits to Toronto Western Hospital, physical gait disability, and navigation experience.

Students will be randomized to two groups (see below) and given video orientation for each route. It takes approximately 4 minutes to walk each one.

Route 1: Conference room 2nd floor to the Day Surgery Unit on the 4th floor. Route 2: Anesthesia lounge on 2nd floor to preoperative assessment clinic on the ground floor to the operating rooms on the 2nd floor

The goal of having each group complete different routes is to assess internal validity within each group when given traditional vs. VR instructions. Group 1 and 2 will also be compared to assess which learning method is superior.

Being tested
VR, Traditional

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • VROther

    Task 1: Students will be first taken to the anesthesia lounge. Here the students will receive VR instructions on how to navigate Route 1 (i.e. they will watch a 360-degree immersive video using Samsung VR headset).

    Task 2: After completing the Route 1 walkthrough, the same group will be given traditional instructions (2D video) on navigating Route 2, followed by an observed walkthrough of Route 2.

    Students in the arm "Group A" will perform Task 1 using VR and then Task 2 using Traditional video. Meanwhile students in the arm "Group B" will perform Task 1 using Traditional video and Task 2 using VR

  • TraditionalOther

    Task 1: Students will be first taken to the anesthesia lounge. Here the students will receive traditional instructions (2D video) on how to navigate Route 1.

    Task 2: After completing the Route 1 walkthrough, the same group will be given VR instructions on how to navigate Route 2, followed by an observed walkthrough of Route 2.

    Students in the arm "Group A" will perform Task 1 using VR and then Task 2 using Traditional video. Meanwhile students in the arm "Group B" will perform Task 1 using Traditional video and Task 2 using VR

Study groups in NCT04480489
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Group AExperimentalIn Group A, students will first perform Task 1 (walk from anesthesia lounge to the day surgery unit) using intervention 1 (using the virtual reality video) first, then Task 2 (walk from anesthesia lounge to the pre-operative clinic) using intervention 2 (using the traditional 2D video).
Receives: Other: VR; Other: Traditional
group BActive comparatorIn Group B, students will first perform Task 1 (follow route 1: walk from anesthesia lounge to the day surgery unit) using intervention 2 (using the traditional 2D video) first, then Task 2 (follow route 2: walk from anesthesia lounge to the pre-operative clinic) using intervention 1 (using the virtual reality video).
Receives: Other: VR; Other: Traditional

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Time assessment

    A research assistant will follow and time how long it takes the medical student to travel from the starting to end point.

    Measured: End of the study (2 hours)

Secondary outcomes (3)
  1. Distance assessment

    The number of steps and distance travelled will be measured using a standardized pedometer.

    Measured: End of the study (2 hours)

  2. Number of wrong turns/wrong floors/doors entered

    Way finding corrective measures

    Measured: End of the study (2 hours)

  3. Number of times student asks for help.

    Way finding corrective measures

    Measured: End of the study (2 hours)

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted21 Jul 2020
  2. Study start28 Aug 2020 (estimated)
  3. Primary completion2 Oct 2020 (estimated)
  4. Study completion23 Oct 2020 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Health services research
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Model description
Prospective randomized controlled trial. Pre-clerkship (year 1 and 2) medical students from the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine will be recruited to take part in the study. Participants will complete a baseline questionnaire collecting data quantifying key potentially confounding factors such as previous 360 videos, previous visits to Toronto Western Hospital, physical gait disability, and navigation experience. A 2x2 study design will be used to implement counterbalancing as a way to control for two important sources of systematic variation in this type of study: practice and boredom effects
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
40 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT04480489
Sponsor's protocol ID
19-5565
Status last verified
Jul 2020
First submitted
17 Jul 2020
Last updated
21 Jul 2020
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No: Individual participant data will not be shared to preserve student privacy and confidentiality throughout the course of the study and the feedback they share at the end of the study. The students however will be provided access to both the VR and the traditional 2D hospital orientation videos once the study is complete.

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing VR and Traditional in people with Virtual Reality and Medical Education, run by University Health Network, Toronto.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Jul 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Rongyu (Cindy) Jin (416-603-5800 Ext. 2016, rongyu.jin@uhn.ca), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Time assessment (time frame: End of the study (2 hours)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Jul 2020.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in