(478.11) Augmented and Virtual Reality in Anatomical Education and its Evaluation: Quality Matters

Poster Board Number: C69
Introduction: AAA has separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – 10:15 am – 11:15 am
Even poster #s – 11:15 am – 12:15 pm

Sebastian Swic (University of British Columbia), Leena Alkhammash (University of British Columbia, University of British Columbia, University of British Columbia), Claudia Krebs (University of British Columbia)

Introduction and

Objective: Many studies have described augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) teaching in anatomy as having great potential. However, for this potential to be realized, deeper exploration of the offered evidence in AR/VR tool evaluation is required. While the body of evidence may be increasing to support the use of AR/VR, the purpose of this review is to examine the gaps in implementing and evaluating AR/VR anatomical education. The focus of many reviews is on the technology with less emphasis on instructional design. This review aims to pave the way for future researchers to provide evidence based, rigorously evaluated and validated anatomical educational tools that will truly be helpful.

Materials and

Methods:  A literature search was conducted using search terms related to AR/VR anatomical educational tool evaluation. Included studies were evaluated for quality of research. 

Results: Gaps in AR/VR anatomy education evaluation studies included lack of user-focused design process, minimal to no re-iterations of AR/VR anatomy educational methods, high risk of bias, low validity, and lack of standardized protocols.

Conclusion: In order to successfully and sustainably incorporate AR/VR into institutional educational curricula, high quality, comprehensive, standardized protocols of evaluation and user-centred design approaches to meet instructional and curricular goals are required. 

Significance/Implication: AR/VR is becoming increasingly available as a tool in anatomy education. It is a promising but relatively new frontier, and as such there is an increased pressure to seek out high quality evidence regarding its efficacy. These protocols must reflect a user-centered, iterative process that begets high quality anatomical educational tools which would reliably and reproducibly lead to higher quality educational outcomes.