Article Text

PDF
Comparison study of the use of 360-degree video and non-360-degree video simulation and cybersickness symptoms in undergraduate healthcare curricula
  1. Natasha Taylor,
  2. Adam Layland
  1. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Natasha Taylor, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry CV1 5RW, UK; natasha.taylor{at}coventry.ac.uk

Abstract

The increasing use of emerging technologies in healthcare simulation, particularly virtual reality, has caused in increase in both use and misuse. It is the exploration and study of these types of technology that are key to their success—or failure—in simulation learning and teaching. Therefore, this exploratory study evaluated the most common perceived side effect of virtual reality, that of cybersickness. A total of n=60 undergraduate healthcare students participated in one of four identical learning outcome simulation events, using different simulation techniques. This study compared these four common simulation tools, high-fidelity manikin, standardised patient, video case study and 360-degree virtual reality video, and analysed the self-reported cybersickness symptoms. The results show that some virtual reality tools, in this case 360-degree video, are no more likely to provoke cybersickness symptoms than the other simulation methods used in this study. In addition, virtual reality is reported as less fatiguing than other methods of simulation learning. Virtual reality technologies may be a useful addition to the spectrum of simulation tools and techniques currently in use. This study suggests that there is no greater risk of cybersickness symptoms and this potential barrier to use is not borne out by this study.

  • virtual reality, cybersickness, 360-degree video

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors NT wrote ethical approval, study design and statistical analysis. NT and AL organised the simulation events, collected data and collaborated on the writing of the paper.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval This study is subject to Coventry University ethical approval processes and gained ethical approval, reference number P69909.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.