Search

Objective: To investigate whether a virtual reality learning environment (VRLE) enhanced student understanding and knowledge compared with a traditional tutorial. Method: A randomized controlled trial involving medical students from University College Dublin, Ireland. Participants were assigned to an intervention (VRLE involving a 15‐min learning experience on the stages of fetal development) or control (PowerPoint tutorial on the same topic) group. Multiple choice questionnaires (MCQs) assessed knowledge at three time points: preintervention, immediately postintervention, and 1 week postintervention. Primary outcomes were differences in MCQ knowledge scores postintervention between groups. Secondary outcomes included attitudes on the learning experience assessed using the Student Satisfaction and Self‐Confidence in Learning Scale (SCLS) and the Virtual Reality Design Scale (VRDS). Results: No statistically significant between‐group differences were found in the primary outcome assessing postintervention knowledge scores. Within‐group differences in knowledge scores were significant among the three time points for both the intervention (P < 0.01 [95% confidence interval, 5.33–6.19]) and control (P = 0.02 [95% confidence interval, 5.74–6.49]) groups. Mean levels of satisfaction and self‐confidence in learning were higher in the intervention group compared with the control group: 54.2 (standard deviation, 7.5) and 50.5 (standard deviation, 7.2), respectively (P = 0.21). Conclusion: VRLEs are a learning tool that can support knowledge development. Synopsis: This study supports the benefit of three‐dimensional lessons to improve knowledge and understanding of complex topics in obstetrics and gynecology education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To design and evaluate the effectiveness of a pre-notification leaflet about research to increase recruitment to a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods A methodological, two-arm, RCT was conducted, embedded within an existing cohort RCT (REFORM). Participants were randomized for the embedded trial, using a 1:2 ratio (intervention : control) before being randomized for REFORM. Controls received a trial recruitment pack. The intervention group received an additional pre-notification leaflet 2-3 weeks before the recruitment pack. Primary and secondary analyses were conducted using relative risk, the Cox proportional hazards model and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results Of the 1436 intervention group participants, 73 (5.1%) were randomized into the REFORM trial compared with 126 (4.4%) of the 2878 control group participants. The associated relative risk (1.16) was not statistically significant [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.56]. Return rate was not significantly increased (relative risk 1.10, 95% CI 0.92-1.28) nor time to return decreased (hazard ratio: 1.11, 95% CI 0.93-1.33). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios indicated the intervention may be cost-effective if the true estimate of effect was close to the upper bound of the associated 95% CI. Conclusion Pre-notification for potential trial participants demonstrated a small difference to randomization (0.7% difference) and return rates (1.1% difference) in favour of the intervention. Results should however be interpreted with caution as CIs for these estimates cross the point of no effect. Nevertheless, this research enhances existing evidence for pre-notification to increase recruitment rates, with further development and assessment of this potentially cost-effective intervention being recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]