The Impact of Virtual Reality in Medical Ionizing Radiation Sciences Education: A Systematic Review of the International Literature



Abstract Views
883

Downloads
318

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Dec 22, 2022
Published Dec 29, 2022
10.24018/ejeng.2022.1.CIE.2959

Abstract viewed = 883 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Studies in medical ionizing radiation sciences apply to a wide range of medical and allied health professions. The students in those sciences learn the basic principles and effects of ionizing radiation on patients for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, as well as the theoretical background in biomedical equipment operation. It is fundamental for those students to receive proper hands-on training, to successfully connect the theory with practice. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed education to a new normal, establishing the use of emerging technologies to facilitate distance learning and virtual interaction. In this paper, we reviewed the literature for applications of virtual reality (VR) learning environments in the education of medical ionizing radiation sciences. We performed a literature search in the databases PubMed and Epistemonikos for the last decade (2012-2022), using combinations of keywords. We also performed a manual search in ResearchGate electronic repository. We identified 15 studies investigating the impact of the application of VR learning environments on students in medicine and allied health professions relevant to medical ionizing radiation sciences. The application of VR can lead to the improvement of learning outcomes, the development of clinical and soft skills, facilitate the comprehension of theoretical concepts through visualization and increase the level of confidence of students before clinical practice. In addition, it is an attractive method of training, offering the benefits of repetition and practice in a safe environment for the students. None of the studies refer that VR learning environments have replaced the clinical placements of the students, which are considered a critical component of their clinical practice. Concluding, there is only a little, regional, and relatively recent quantitative evidence, demonstrating the successful incorporation of VR learning environments in curricula of medical ionizing radiation sciences. From our perspective, VR can become a valuable pedagogical tool for those curricula, helping the connection of theory with clinical practice and enhancing the confidence of students.

Keywords: Education, medical radiation sciences, simulation, virtual reality.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Pottle J. Virtual reality and the transformation of medical education. Future Healthc J. 2019 Oct;6(3):181–185. doi: 10.7861/fhj.2019-0036.
     Google Scholar
  2. Izard SG, Juanes JA, García Peñalvo FJ, Estella JMG, Ledesma MJS, Ruisoto P. Virtual Reality as an Educational and Training Tool for Medicine. J Med Syst. 2018 Feb 1;42(3):50. doi: 10.1007/s10916-018-0900-2.
     Google Scholar
  3. Sujar A, Kelly G, García M, Vidal FP. Interactive teaching environment for diagnostic radiography with real-time X-ray simulation and patient positioning. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2021 Oct 13;17(1):85–95. doi: 10.1007/s11548-021-02499-7.
     Google Scholar
  4. Ahmed KKM, Al Dhubaib BE. Zotero: A bibliographic assistant to researcher. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2011 Dec 1;2(4):303–305. doi: 10.4103/0976-500X.85940.
     Google Scholar
  5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Medicine. 2009 Jun 21;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
     Google Scholar
  6. Eriksen MB, Frandsen TF. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Oct;106(4):420–431. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2018.345.
     Google Scholar
  7. Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information. 2018 Jan 1;34(4):285–291. doi: 10.3233/EFI-180221.
     Google Scholar
  8. Nishi K, Fujibuchi T, Yoshinaga T. Development and evaluation of the effectiveness of educational material for radiological protection that uses augmented reality and virtual reality to visualise the behaviour of scattered radiation. J Radiol Prot. 2022 Jan 17;42(1). doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/ac3e0a.
     Google Scholar
  9. O’Connor M, Stowe J, Potocnik J, Giannotti N, Murphy S, Rainford L. 3D virtual reality simulation in radiography education: The students’ experience. Radiography. 2021 Feb 1;27(1):208–214. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2020.07.017.
     Google Scholar
  10. Fujibuchi T. Radiation protection education using virtual reality for the visualisation of scattered distributions during radiological examinations. J Radiol Prot. 2021 Sep 27;41(4). doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/ac16b1.
     Google Scholar
  11. Cheung EYW, Law MYY, Cheung F. The Role of Virtual Environment for Radiotherapy Training (VERT) in Medical Dosimetry Education. J Cancer Educ. 2021 Apr;36(2):271–277. doi: 10.1007/s13187-019-01622-2.
     Google Scholar
  12. Sapkaroski D, Mundy M, Dimmock MR. Virtual reality versus conventional clinical role-play for radiographic positioning training: A students’ perception study. Radiography. 2020 Feb 1;26(1):57–62. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2019.08.001.
     Google Scholar
  13. Gunn T, Rowntree P, Starkey D, Nissen L. The use of virtual reality computed tomography simulation within a medical imaging and a radiation therapy undergraduate programme. J Med Radiat Sci. 2020 Sep 30;68(1):28–36. doi: 10.1002/jmrs.436.
     Google Scholar
  14. Taubert M, Webber L, Hamilton T, Carr M, Harvey M. Virtual reality videos used in undergraduate palliative and oncology medical teaching: results of a pilot study. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2019 Sep 1;9(3):281–285. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2018-001720.
     Google Scholar
  15. Sapkaroski D, Baird M, Mundy M, Dimmock MR. Quantification of Student Radiographic Patient Positioning Using an Immersive Virtual Reality Simulation. Simul Healthc. 2019 Aug 1;14(4):258–263. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000380.
     Google Scholar
  16. Lorenzo-Alvarez R, Rudolphi-Solero T, Ruiz-Gomez MJ, Sendra-Portero F. Medical Student Education for Abdominal Radiographs in a 3D Virtual Classroom Versus Traditional Classroom: A Randomized Controlled Trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Sep 1;213(3):644–650. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21131.
     Google Scholar
  17. Bork F, Stratmann L, Enssle S, Eck U, Navab N, Waschke J, et al. The Benefits of an Augmented Reality Magic Mirror System for Integrated Radiology Teaching in Gross Anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2019 Nov 1;12(6):585–598. doi: 10.1002/ase.1864.
     Google Scholar
  18. Lorenzo-Alvarez R, Pavia-Molina J, Sendra-Portero F. Exploring the Potential of Undergraduate Radiology Education in the Virtual World Second Life with First-cycle and Second-cycle Medical Students. Acad Radiol. 2018 Aug 1;25(8):1087–1096. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2018.02.026.
     Google Scholar
  19. Leong A, Herst P, Kane P. VERT, a virtual clinical environment, enhances understanding of radiation therapy planning concepts. J Med Radiat Sci. 2018 Jun 1;65(2):97–105. doi: 10.1002/jmrs.272.
     Google Scholar
  20. Jimenez YA, Thwaites DI, Juneja P, Lewis SJ. Interprofessional education: evaluation of a radiation therapy and medical physics student simulation workshop. J Med Radiat Sci. 2018 Jun 1;65(2):106–113. doi: 10.1002/jmrs.256.
     Google Scholar
  21. Gunn T, Jones L, Bridge P, Rowntree P, Nissen L. The use of virtual reality simulation to improve technical skill in the undergraduate medical imaging student. Interact Learn Environ. 2018 Jul 4;26(5):613–620. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2017.1374981.
     Google Scholar
  22. Bridge P, Crowe SB, Gibson G, Ellemor NJ, Hargrave C, Carmichael M. A virtual radiation therapy workflow training simulation. Radiography. 2016 Feb 1;22(1):e59–63. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2015.08.001.
     Google Scholar
  23. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright (#1148552), Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada.
     Google Scholar
  24. Currie G, Hewis J, Nelson T, Chandler A, Nabasenja C, Spuur K, et al. COVID-19 impact on undergraduate teaching: Medical radiation science teaching team experience. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2020 Dec 1;51(4):518–527. doi: 10.1016/j.jmir.2020.09.002.
     Google Scholar
  25. Tay YX, Sng LH, Chow HC, Zainuldin MR. Clinical placements for undergraduate diagnostic radiography students amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore: Preparation, challenges and strategies for safe resumption. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2020 Dec 1;51(4):560–566. doi: 10.1016/j.jmir.2020.08.012.
     Google Scholar
  26. Kumsa MJ, Lemu BN, Nguse TM, Omiyi DO, Akudjedu TN. Clinical placement challenges associated with radiography education in a low-resource setting: A qualitative exploration of the Ethiopian landscape. Radiography. 2022 Dec 12;28(3):634–640. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2022.04.014.
     Google Scholar
  27. Pantelidis, P, Chorti, A, Papagiouvanni, I, Paparoidamis, G, Drosos, C, Panagiotakopoulos, T, Lales, G, Sideris, M. Virtual and Augmented Reality in Medical Education. In: Medical and Surgical Education - Past, Present and Future. Tsoulfas, G. Ed. London, IntechOpen, 2017, ch. 5, pp. 77-97. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.71963.
     Google Scholar