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.).
Abstract:
With the increasing availability of virtual reality (VR) and its lower overall costs of use, the objective of this review was to compare VR to traditional simulation in terms of learning outcomes. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: ( a ) research study (of any design), ( b ) focused on learners in health professions, and ( c ) compared VR with traditional simulation. Studies were excluded for the following reasons: ( a ) not a research study, ( b ) focused on learners outside health professions, ( c ) used screen-based or computer-based simulation, ( d ) used a task trainer, and ( e ) did not involve a comparison of VR to traditional simulation. The searches were run on November 11 and 12, 2021, in CINAHL via EBSCO, Ovid Embase, ERIC via EBSCO, IEEE Xplore, Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines guided the review. A team of researchers applied Kirkpatrick's Levels, Melnyk's Levels of Evidence, and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme guidelines to assess the level of evidence and look for bias. Fifteen studies were reviewed including 11 randomized controlled trials. The lead researcher synthesized the study results into 3 categories: (1) traditional simulation performed better, (2) VR performed better, and (3) comparable outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to endorse one form of simulation (VR or traditional) as more effective at this time. The body of evidence contained too few studies to draw meaningful conclusions to answer the guiding question. The studies covered a large range of modalities, learner groups, and healthcare topics, preventing a meta-analysis. Based on the literature and experience, we recommend that VR experiences be proctored, include debriefing, have a backup plan for cybersickness or myopia, and have time and costs documented. Use of VR is likely to expand; thus, research is needed to inform the best contexts and applications.
