Search

BackgroundPatient simulators are an increasingly important part of medical training. They have been shown to be effective in teaching procedural skills, medical knowledge, and clinical decision-making. Recently, virtual and augmented reality simulators are being produced, but there is no research on whether these more realistic experiences cause problematic and greater stress responses as compared to standard manikin simulators. ObjectiveThe purpose of this research is to examine the psychological and physiological effects of augmented reality (AR) in medical simulation training as compared to traditional manikin simulations. MethodsA within-subjects experimental design was used to assess the responses of medical students (N=89) as they completed simulated (using either manikin or AR) pediatric resuscitations. Baseline measures of psychological well-being, salivary cortisol, and galvanic skin response (GSR) were taken before the simulations began. Continuous GSR assessments throughout and after the simulations were captured along with follow-up measures of emotion and cortisol. Participants also wrote freely about their experience with each simulation, and narratives were coded for emotional word use. ResultsOf the total 86 medical students who participated, 37 (43%) were male and 49 (57%) were female, with a mean age of 25.2 (SD 2.09, range 22-30) years and 24.7 (SD 2.08, range 23-36) years, respectively. GSR was higher in the manikin group adjusted for day, sex, and medications taken by the participants (AR-manikin: –0.11, 95% CI –0.18 to –0.03; P=.009). The difference in negative affect between simulation types was not statistically significant (AR-manikin: 0.41, 95% CI –0.72 to 1.53; P=.48). There was no statistically significant difference between simulation types in self-reported stress (AR-manikin: 0.53, 95% CI –2.35 to 3.42; P=.71) or simulation stress (AR-manikin: –2.17, 95% CI –6.94 to 2.59; P=.37). The difference in percentage of positive emotion words used to describe the experience was not statistically significant between simulation types, which were adjusted for day of experiment, sex of the participants, and total number of words used (AR-manikin: –4.0, 95% CI –0.91 to 0.10; P=.12). There was no statistically significant difference between simulation types in terms of the percentage of negative emotion words used to describe the experience (AR-manikin: –0.33, 95% CI –1.12 to 0.46; P=.41), simulation sickness (AR-manikin: 0.17, 95% CI –0.29 to 0.62; P=.47), or salivary cortisol (AR-manikin: 0.04, 95% CI –0.05 to 0.13; P=.41). Finally, preexisting levels of posttraumatic stress disorder, perceived stress, and reported depression were not tied to physiological responses to AR. ConclusionsAR simulators elicited similar stress responses to currently used manikin-based simulators, and we did not find any evidence of AR simulators causing excessive stress to participants. Therefore, AR simulators are a promising tool to be used in medical training, which can provide more emotionally realistic scenarios without the risk of additional harm.

BackgroundFemales make up more than half of medical school matriculants but only one-third of emergency medicine (EM) residents. Various factors may contribute to why fewer females choose the field of EM, such as the existing presence of females in the specialty. ObjectiveThis study is a follow-up to previous work, and a survey is used to assess current residents’ attitudes and perceptions on various factors, including those relating to sex and gender on creating rank lists as medical students and in perceived effects on residency education. MethodsA web-based survey consisting of Likert scale questions regarding a variety of factors influencing a student’s decision to create a rank list and in perceived effects on residency education was sent to current EM residents in 2020. ResultsResidents from 17 programs participated in the survey with an 18.2% (138/758) response rate. The most important factors in creating a rank list were the personality of residents in the program, location, and facility type. For factors specifically related to gender, respondents who answered affirmatively to whether the gender composition of residents affected the selection of a program in making a rank list were more likely to also answer affirmatively to subsequent questions related to the gender of program leadership (P