ABSTRACT
Purpose: Historically, medical education relied on apprentice-based experiences requiring direct observation in patient cases. Simulation-based education has been shown to improve resident confidence but can be time intensive and difficult to coordinate. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the need to develop distributed educational tools. Virtual reality (VR) platform has been shown to improve resident confidence and proficiencies. This pilot study compared educational and cost effectiveness of low-cost cardboard viewer VR (CVVR) and commercially available integrated headset VR (IHVR). Material(s) and Method(s): We created a VR video of an intracavitary brachytherapy case for treatment of cervical cancer. Radiation oncology residents from a single ACGME-accredited training program were recruited and randomized to IHVR or CVVR. Both groups were given unlimited access to their randomized technology. Each resident performed a timed intracavitary procedure on a simulator while 5 implant quality metrics were recorded. A pre- and post-simulation questionnaire assessed self-confidence, procedural knowledge, and perceived usefulness of VR technology. Result(s): There were 13 residents, including four post-graduate year (PGY)-2, three PGY-3, two PGY-4, and four PGY-5, in the study. Seven (53.8%) of residents had previously performed an intracavitary brachytherapy procedure, while six (46.2%) had no prior experience. There were six residents randomized to IHVR and seven residents randomized to CVVR. Both VR technologies improved self-perceived overall confidence, assembly skill, and comfort performing the procedure independently. There were also non-statistically significant improvements in the ability to correctly order the steps of the brachytherapy procedure on post-simulation survey compared to pre-simulation survey in both VR viewer groups. Average time required for implant (mean: CVVR - 200 seconds vs. IHVR - 235 seconds, p=0.38) and median objective proficiencies of implant quality (5/5 in both group, p=0.56) were similar. There was no difference between CVVR and IHVR as useful, enjoyable and engaging educational tool. Both groups would recommend the technology to another trainee. There were differences in the time between last usage of the VR technology with 50% of the residents in the IHVR group completing the last VR SBE more than 2 weeks before the procedure, while the majority of residents in the CVVR group (57%) completed the last VR SBE within 1 hour before the procedure. IHVR-based program would cost ~33x more than CVVR-based program based on an assessment of US-based programs. Conclusion(s): CVVR is a cost-effective alternative to a IHVR as a virtual education tool. Copyright © 2022
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Historically, medical education relied on apprentice-based experiences requiring direct observation in patient cases. Simulation-based education has been shown to improve resident confidence but can be time intensive and difficult to coordinate. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the need to develop distributed educational tools. Virtual reality (VR) platform has been shown to improve resident confidence and proficiencies. This pilot study compared educational and cost effectiveness of low-cost cardboard viewer VR (CVVR) and commercially available integrated headset VR (IHVR). Material(s) and Method(s): We created a VR video of an intracavitary brachytherapy case for treatment of cervical cancer. Radiation oncology residents from a single ACGME-accredited training program were recruited and randomized to IHVR or CVVR. Both groups were given unlimited access to their randomized technology. Each resident performed a timed intracavitary procedure on a simulator while 5 implant quality metrics were recorded. A pre- and post-simulation questionnaire assessed self-confidence, procedural knowledge, and perceived usefulness of VR technology. Result(s): There were 13 residents, including four post-graduate year (PGY)-2, three PGY-3, two PGY-4, and four PGY-5, in the study. Seven (53.8%) of residents had previously performed an intracavitary brachytherapy procedure, while six (46.2%) had no prior experience. There were six residents randomized to IHVR and seven residents randomized to CVVR. Both VR technologies improved self-perceived overall confidence, assembly skill, and comfort performing the procedure independently. There were also non-statistically significant improvements in the ability to correctly order the steps of the brachytherapy procedure on post-simulation survey compared to pre-simulation survey in both VR viewer groups. Average time required for implant (mean: CVVR - 200 seconds vs. IHVR - 235 seconds, p=0.38) and median objective proficiencies of implant quality (5/5 in both group, p=0.56) were similar. There was no difference between CVVR and IHVR as useful, enjoyable and engaging educational tool. Both groups would recommend the technology to another trainee. There were differences in the time between last usage of the VR technology with 50% of the residents in the IHVR group completing the last VR SBE more than 2 weeks before the procedure, while the majority of residents in the CVVR group (57%) completed the last VR SBE within 1 hour before the procedure. IHVR-based program would cost ~33x more than CVVR-based program based on an assessment of US-based programs. Conclusion(s): CVVR is a cost-effective alternative to a IHVR as a virtual education tool. Copyright © 2022
ABSTRACT
Background: Historically, medical education relied on apprentice-based experiences requiring direct observation in patient cases. Simulation-based education has been shown to improve resident confidence but can be time intensive and difficult to coordinate. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the need to develop distributed educational tools. Virtual reality (VR) platform has been shown to improve resident confidence and proficiencies. This pilot study compared educational and cost effectiveness of low-cost cardboard viewer VR (CVVR) and commercially available integrated headset VR (IHVR). Methods and Materials: We created a 2D, 360-degree VR video of an intracavitary brachytherapy case for treatment of cervical cancer. Radiation oncology residents from a single ACGME-accredited training program were recruited and randomized to IHVR or CVVR. Both groups were given unlimited access to their randomized technology. Each resident performed a timed intracavitary procedure on a simulator while five implant quality metrics were recorded. A pre- and post-simulation questionnaire assessed self-confidence, procedural knowledge, and perceived usefulness of VR technology. Results: There were 13 residents, including four post-graduate year (PGY)-2, three PGY-3, two PGY-4, and four PGY-5, in the study. Both VR technologies improved self-perceived overall confidence. Average time required for implant (mean: CVVR - 200 s vs IHVR - 235 s, p = 0.38) and median objective proficiencies of implant quality (5/5 in both group, p = 0.56) were similar. There was no difference between CVVR and IHVR as useful, enjoyable and engaging educational tool. Both groups would recommend the technology to another trainee. IHVR-based program would cost ∼33x more than CVVR-based program based on an assessment of US-based programs. Conclusion: CVVR is a cost-effective alternative to a IHVR as a virtual video-based education tool. Copyright © 2022 Shah, Taunk, Maxwell, Wang, Hubley, Anamalayil, Trotter and Li.
ABSTRACT
Background: Traditionally procedural training requires in-person and hands-on education. However, only about 50% of residents express confidence to develop a brachytherapy practice (Marcrom SR, et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019). The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the need to develop distributed educational tools for procedural experiences. Virtual reality (VR) platform has been shown to improves resident confidence and proficiencies (Taunk NK. et al. Brachytherapy 2021). Objective(s): We hypothesize that a low-cost cardboard viewer VR (CVVR) has similar educational effectiveness as commercially available integrated headset VR (IHVR). Method(s): We created a VR video of an intracavitary brachytherapy case. Radiation oncology residents from a single ACGME-accredited training program were recruited and randomized to IHVR or CVVR. Both groups were given unlimited access to their randomized technology. Each resident performed a timed intracavitary procedure on a simulator while 5 implant quality metrics were recorded. A pre- and post-simulation questionnaire assessed self-confidence, procedural knowledge, and perceived usefulness of VR technology. Result(s): There were 13 residents, including four post-graduate year (PGY)-2, three PGY-3, two PGY-4, and four PGY-5, in the study. Both VR technologies improved self-perceived overall confidence. Average time required for implant (mean: CVVR-200 seconds vs. IHVR-235 seconds, P=0.38) and median objective proficiencies of implant quality (5/5 in both group, P=0.56) were similar. There was no difference between CVVR and IHVR as useful, enjoyable and engaging educational tool. Both groups would recommend the technology to another trainee. IHVR-based program would cost ~33x more than CVVR-based program based on an assessment of US-based programs. Conclusion(s): CVVR is a cost-effective alternative to a IHVR as a virtual education tool (Figs. 1-3). (Table Presented).