Asheen Rama, Marcos S Rojas-Pino, Ellen Y Wang, Samuel T Rodriguez, Man Yee Suen, Janet S Titzler, Michelle Zuniga-Hernandez, Christian Jackson, Oswaldo Rosales, Faith Collins, Thomas J Caruso
{"title":"The Physiologic Effect of Augmented Reality Simulation Versus Traditional Simulation: A Noninferiority, Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Asheen Rama, Marcos S Rojas-Pino, Ellen Y Wang, Samuel T Rodriguez, Man Yee Suen, Janet S Titzler, Michelle Zuniga-Hernandez, Christian Jackson, Oswaldo Rosales, Faith Collins, Thomas J Caruso","doi":"10.46374/VolXXVII_Issue1_Rama","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditional medical simulations leverage stressful scenarios to potentiate memory. Augmented reality (AR) simulations provide cost-effective experiences using holograms instead of mannequins. This study investigated the physiologic response to AR simulations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a noninferiority, controlled trial at an academic, pediatric hospital in Northern California among health care workers randomized to AR or traditional, in situ medical simulations. The primary outcome investigated parasympathetic tone. Biometric sensors assessed parasympathetic tone as respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA). A difference in RSA of less than 10% between groups was considered noninferior. Secondary outcomes explored usability, ergonomics, satisfaction, and recall with the System Usability Scale (SUS), ISO 9241-400, Simulation Design Scale (SDS), and an electronic questionnaire 5 months after the intervention, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 111 participants were enrolled and 106 analyzed. Both groups experienced a decrease in mean RSA from baseline to during the simulation (<i>P</i> < .001 for both groups). Subsequently, there was an increase in RSA from the simulation period to the recovery period (<i>P</i> < .001 for the AR group and <i>P</i> = .035 for the traditional group). Regarding secondary outcomes, the mean SUS score of 70.5 suggested good usability, 65.38% of AR participants reported feeling comfortable using the headset, and satisfaction in both groups was similar except for differences in use of real-life factors. The recall assessment was completed by 12 AR and 15 traditional participants, with similar scores between the 2 groups (<i>P</i> = .4).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AR simulations produced a noninferior change in parasympathetic tone compared with traditional simulations. Future investigations may explore the effectiveness of AR simulations for developing nontechnical skills during remote training. (Registration: Clinical Trials Registry NCT05674188.).</p>","PeriodicalId":75067,"journal":{"name":"The journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPM","volume":"27 1","pages":"E740"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11978224/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46374/VolXXVII_Issue1_Rama","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Traditional medical simulations leverage stressful scenarios to potentiate memory. Augmented reality (AR) simulations provide cost-effective experiences using holograms instead of mannequins. This study investigated the physiologic response to AR simulations.
Methods: This was a noninferiority, controlled trial at an academic, pediatric hospital in Northern California among health care workers randomized to AR or traditional, in situ medical simulations. The primary outcome investigated parasympathetic tone. Biometric sensors assessed parasympathetic tone as respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA). A difference in RSA of less than 10% between groups was considered noninferior. Secondary outcomes explored usability, ergonomics, satisfaction, and recall with the System Usability Scale (SUS), ISO 9241-400, Simulation Design Scale (SDS), and an electronic questionnaire 5 months after the intervention, respectively.
Results: A total of 111 participants were enrolled and 106 analyzed. Both groups experienced a decrease in mean RSA from baseline to during the simulation (P < .001 for both groups). Subsequently, there was an increase in RSA from the simulation period to the recovery period (P < .001 for the AR group and P = .035 for the traditional group). Regarding secondary outcomes, the mean SUS score of 70.5 suggested good usability, 65.38% of AR participants reported feeling comfortable using the headset, and satisfaction in both groups was similar except for differences in use of real-life factors. The recall assessment was completed by 12 AR and 15 traditional participants, with similar scores between the 2 groups (P = .4).
Conclusions: AR simulations produced a noninferior change in parasympathetic tone compared with traditional simulations. Future investigations may explore the effectiveness of AR simulations for developing nontechnical skills during remote training. (Registration: Clinical Trials Registry NCT05674188.).