Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2026
The Immersive Cleveland Clinic Virtual Reality Shopping Platform for the Assessment of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living
Published on: July 28, 2022
A Comparison of Virtual Reality to Traditional Simulation in Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review
Cynthia L Foronda1, Laura Gonzalez, Merrick M Meese
1From the University of Miami School of Nursing and Health Studies, Coral Gables, FL (C.L.F.); Clinical Learning Resources, Sentinel U, Waterbury, CT (L.G.); Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, UAB Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL (M.M.M.); The Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA (N.S.); Nemours/duPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, DE (N.S.); Divisions of Pediatric Emergency Medicine and Simulation, Department of Emergency Medicine, Riley Hospital for Children/Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, IN (M.B.); School of Nursing and Health Studies, University of Miami, Coral Gables (J.L.); and University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, MI (M.A.).
Virtual reality (VR) and traditional simulation show comparable learning outcomes in healthcare professions. More research is needed to determine the most effective simulation method for medical training.
Area of Science:
- Medical Education
- Simulation Technology
- Health Professions Training
Background:
- Virtual reality (VR) is increasingly accessible for healthcare education.
- Traditional simulation methods are widely used in health professions training.
- A comparison between VR and traditional simulation learning outcomes is warranted.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare virtual reality (VR) simulation with traditional simulation methods regarding learning outcomes in health professions learners.
- To synthesize current evidence on the effectiveness of VR versus traditional simulation in medical education.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
- Searched multiple databases (CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, IEEE Xplore, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science) in November 2021.
- Included 15 studies (11 randomized controlled trials) comparing VR with traditional simulation for health professions learners, assessed using Kirkpatrick's Levels and Melnyk's Levels of Evidence.
Main Results:
- The review found insufficient evidence to definitively endorse either VR or traditional simulation as superior.
- Results were categorized into traditional simulation performing better, VR performing better, or comparable outcomes.
- A meta-analysis was not feasible due to the heterogeneity of studies in modalities, learner groups, and healthcare topics.
Conclusions:
- Current evidence is insufficient to determine the superior simulation method (VR or traditional) for healthcare learning outcomes.
- Further research is necessary to establish best practices and optimal contexts for VR simulation in medical education.
- Recommendations include proctored VR sessions, debriefing, managing side effects, and documenting time/costs.
