Describing, Evaluating, and Exploring Barriers to Adoption of Virtual Reality: An International Modified Delphi Consensus Study Involving Clinicians, Educators, and Industry Professionals.

Journal of medical extended reality Pub Date : 2024-10-21 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1089/jmxr.2024.0022
Jonathan R Abbas, Eric Gantwerker, Mark Volk, Tony Payton, Brendan A McGrath, Neil Tolley, Rachel Isba, Iain A Bruce
{"title":"Describing, Evaluating, and Exploring Barriers to Adoption of Virtual Reality: An International Modified Delphi Consensus Study Involving Clinicians, Educators, and Industry Professionals.","authors":"Jonathan R Abbas, Eric Gantwerker, Mark Volk, Tony Payton, Brendan A McGrath, Neil Tolley, Rachel Isba, Iain A Bruce","doi":"10.1089/jmxr.2024.0022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>With the rising interest in extended reality technology, the literature base is rapidly growing. With this growth, confusion within the descriptive terminology, and incoherence in the methodological approach to training tool evaluation exists. Additionally, the development expectations of the health care worker, educator, and academic are not clear. This study aimed to work toward consensus agreement around four key areas of interest: (1) descriptive terminology (2) evaluation methodology (3) research outcome measure selection, and (4) barriers and facilitators to adoption of VR into health care education. This study was an international, electronic, Modified Delphi Consensus study, which ran over two rounds. Systematic literature review, ratified by a multidisciplinary study advisory group, and combined with Delphi round, one participant responses generated a total of 133 propositions across all areas of interest. In two rounds of a Delphi process, consensus was reached for a total of 102 propositions of which 49 were included, and 53 excluded, with the remaining 31 propositions not reaching consensus. Fifteen terms were deemed important when describing VR technology with 'virtual environment', 'interactive', and 'simulation' achieving the highest levels of agreement. There was almost unanimous agreement that technology should be described by its interplay between the hardware and software involved in a system and that educational outcome retention should be measured when evaluating VR training. High-cost was the most important prohibitive barrier to VR uptake with easy access to content and low maintenance effort being most attractive factors. This study represents a first step toward international consensus around how to describe VR technology, how to approach VR educational evaluation including selection of appropriate research outcome measures, the most important barriers to technology adoption and design considerations that facilitate technology adoption into health care education.</p>","PeriodicalId":517437,"journal":{"name":"Journal of medical extended reality","volume":"1 1","pages":"202-214"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13390693/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of medical extended reality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jmxr.2024.0022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the rising interest in extended reality technology, the literature base is rapidly growing. With this growth, confusion within the descriptive terminology, and incoherence in the methodological approach to training tool evaluation exists. Additionally, the development expectations of the health care worker, educator, and academic are not clear. This study aimed to work toward consensus agreement around four key areas of interest: (1) descriptive terminology (2) evaluation methodology (3) research outcome measure selection, and (4) barriers and facilitators to adoption of VR into health care education. This study was an international, electronic, Modified Delphi Consensus study, which ran over two rounds. Systematic literature review, ratified by a multidisciplinary study advisory group, and combined with Delphi round, one participant responses generated a total of 133 propositions across all areas of interest. In two rounds of a Delphi process, consensus was reached for a total of 102 propositions of which 49 were included, and 53 excluded, with the remaining 31 propositions not reaching consensus. Fifteen terms were deemed important when describing VR technology with 'virtual environment', 'interactive', and 'simulation' achieving the highest levels of agreement. There was almost unanimous agreement that technology should be described by its interplay between the hardware and software involved in a system and that educational outcome retention should be measured when evaluating VR training. High-cost was the most important prohibitive barrier to VR uptake with easy access to content and low maintenance effort being most attractive factors. This study represents a first step toward international consensus around how to describe VR technology, how to approach VR educational evaluation including selection of appropriate research outcome measures, the most important barriers to technology adoption and design considerations that facilitate technology adoption into health care education.

描述、评估和探索采用虚拟现实的障碍:一项涉及临床医生、教育工作者和行业专业人士的国际修改德尔菲共识研究。
随着人们对扩展现实技术的兴趣日益浓厚,相关的文献基础也在迅速增长。随着这种增长,描述性术语的混乱和培训工具评估方法的不一致性存在。此外,卫生保健工作者、教育工作者和学者的发展期望也不明确。本研究旨在围绕以下四个关键领域达成共识:(1)描述性术语;(2)评估方法;(3)研究结果测量选择;(4)将虚拟现实应用于卫生保健教育的障碍和促进因素。这项研究是一项国际、电子、修正德尔菲共识研究,共进行了两轮。系统的文献回顾,由一个多学科研究咨询小组批准,并结合德尔菲轮,一个参与者的回答产生了133个提案,涉及所有感兴趣的领域。在两轮德尔菲过程中,共有102个提案达成共识,其中49个被纳入,53个被排除,其余31个提案未达成共识。在描述VR技术时,有15个术语被认为是重要的,其中“虚拟环境”、“互动”和“模拟”达到了最高的一致性。几乎一致同意,技术应该通过系统中涉及的硬件和软件之间的相互作用来描述,并且在评估VR培训时应该衡量教育成果的保留。高成本是阻碍VR发展的最重要障碍,而易于获取内容和低维护成本则是最具吸引力的因素。这项研究代表了国际共识的第一步,包括如何描述虚拟现实技术,如何进行虚拟现实教育评估,包括选择适当的研究结果衡量标准,技术采用的最重要障碍和促进技术采用的设计考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书