An Experimental Study On Usefulness Of Virtual Reality 360° In Undergraduate Medical Education

Figures & data

Figure 1 Saudi MEDs framework.

Table 1 Demographics Of Participants In The Virtual Reality And Conventional Based Groups (n=169)

		n	%	SD	p-value
Groups	Virtual reality	57	34	17.2	0.37
	Conventional method	112	66	15.8
Gender	Male	119	70	–	–
	Female	50	30
Streams	Stream 1	119	73	–	–
	Stream 2	43	27

Table 2 Age And Gender Distribution Under Virtual And Conventional Lectures

		Virtual Lecture, n (%)	Conventional Lecture, n (%)
Age	21–25	65 (38.46%)	35 (20.7%)
	26–30	33 (19.5%)	36 (21.30%)
Gender	Male	72 (42.60%)	47 (27.8%)
	Female	15 (8.8%)	35 (20.71%)

Figure 2 Bar chart, levels of agreement on perceptions of technology in education.

Figure 3 Bar chart, levels of agreement on perceptions of virtual technology education.

Figure 4 Bar chart, levels of agreement on perceptions of affordance.

Figure 5 Bar chart, levels of agreement on perceptions of opportunities.

Table 3 Scores Of Participants In The Virtual Reality And Conventional Groups

Score	Virtual Reality Group	Conventional Group	p-value
End of workshop evaluation	38.1±4.5 (n=41)	38.1±4.4 (n=72)	0.98
OSCE	12.9±4.1 (n=47)	9.8±4.2 (n=85)	<0.001
Pre-MCQs	14.8±3.4 (n=57)	14.0±3.1 (n=111)	0.16
Post-MCQs	17.4±2.1 (n=49)	15.9±2.9 (n=105)	<0.001

Table 4 Satisfaction Level Of Participants In The Virtual Reality Group (n=51)

Gender	n	Mean	+	SD	p-value
Male	29	184.7	+	46.6	<0.001
Female	22	234.5	+	34.8