Many university-taught courses moved to online form since the outbreak of the global pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Distance learning has become broadly used as a result of the widely applied lockdowns, however, many students lack personal contact in the learning process. A classical web-based distance learning does not provide means for natural interpersonal interaction. The technology of immersive virtual reality (iVR) may mitigate this problem. Current research has been aimed mainly at specific instances of collaborative immersive virtual environment (CIVE) applications for learning. The fields utilizing iVR for knowledge construction and skills training with the use of spatial visualizations show promising results. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of collaborative and individual use of iVR for learning geography, specifically training in hypsography. Furthermore, the study's goals were to determine whether collaborative learning would be more effective and to investigate the key elements in which collaborative and individual learning were expected to differ-motivation and use of cognitive resources. The CIVE application developed at Masaryk University was utilized to train 80 participants in inferring conclusions from cartographic visualizations. The collaborative and individual experimental group underwent a research procedure consisting of a pretest, training in iVR, posttest, and questionnaires. A statistical comparison between the geography pretest and posttest for the individual learning showed a significant increase in the score (p = 0.024, ES = 0.128) and speed (p = 0.027, ES = 0.123), while for the collaborative learning, there was a significant increase in the score (p<0.001, ES = 0.333) but not in speed (p = 1.000, ES = 0.000). Thus, iVR as a medium proved to be an effective tool for learning geography. However, comparing the collaborative and individual learning showed no significant difference in the learning gain (p = 0.303, ES = 0.115), speed gain (p = 0.098, ES = 0.185), or performance motivation (p = 0.368, ES = 0.101). Nevertheless, the collaborative learning group had significantly higher use of cognitive resources (p = 0.046, ES = 0.223) than the individual learning group. The results were discussed in relation to the cognitive load theories, and future research directions for iVR learning were proposed.
- MeSH
- COVID-19 * epidemiology prevention & control MeSH
- Communicable Disease Control MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Learning MeSH
- Virtual Reality * MeSH
- Geography MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Water immersion insertion is able to reduce discomfort and need for sedation during colonoscopy. A cap attached to the colonoscope tip may improve insertion during air insufflation colonoscopy. According to several reports, both techniques alone may result in higher detection of neoplastic lesions. Our study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of cap-assisted water immersion compared to water immersion colonoscopy in minimally sedated patients. METHODS: A total of 208 consecutive outpatients were randomized to either cap-assisted water immersion (Cap Water) or water immersion colonoscopy (Water). The primary endpoint was cecal intubation time. RESULTS: Cecal intubation time was 6.9 ± 2.9 min in Cap Water and 7.4 ± 4.2 min in the Water arm (P = 0.73). Success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy was equal in both groups (92.9%, P = 1.00). From the endoscopist's point of view, there were non-significant trends towards lower discomfort (P = 0.06), less need for abdominal compression (P = 0.06) and lower difficulty score (P = 0.05) during Cap Water colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was similar in both arms (44% in Cap Water vs 45% in the Water group, P = 0.88). There were no complications recorded in the present study. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with water immersion without cap, cap-assisted water immersion colonoscopy was not able to shorten the cecal intubation time. However, it has the possibility of reducing patient discomfort and difficulty of colonoscope insertion. Potential impact on improved detection of neoplastic lesions has to be evaluated by further studies.
- MeSH
- Adenoma diagnosis MeSH
- Conscious Sedation methods MeSH
- Abdominal Pain diagnosis MeSH
- Equipment Design MeSH
- Colonoscopy methods MeSH
- Colonoscopes * MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Pain Measurement methods MeSH
- Cecal Neoplasms diagnosis MeSH
- Follow-Up Studies MeSH
- Immersion * MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Reproducibility of Results MeSH
- Patient Satisfaction MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
Použití vodní imerze při zavádění kolonoskopu je schopno snížit dyskomfort pacientů během kolonoskopie. Ve většině publikovaných studií byla použita teplá voda. Použití vody pokojové teploty je v praxi technicky méně náročné a průkaz srovnatelné efektivity by mohl podpořit použití vodní imerze v běžné endoskopické praxi. Metodika: Ve dvojitě zaslepené studii bylo celkem 201 pacientů náhodně zařazeno buď do skupiny kolonoskopie ve vodní imerzi s použitím chladné vody (20–24 °C), nebo do skupiny s použitím teplé vody (37 °C). Primárním cílem studie byl čas do intubace céka. Výsledky: Čas intubace céka byl srovnatelný; 6,9 ? 3,5 min ve větvi s chladnou vodou vs 7,0 ? 3,4 min ve větvi s teplou vodou (p = 0,64). Úspěšnost kolonoskopie při minimální sedaci (89,1 % při chladné vodě vs 90 % při teplé vodě; p = 1,00) a dyskomfort během kolonoskopie (p = 0,51) nebyly odlišné. Všechny ostatní parametry kromě častější potřeby zevní komprese břicha ve větvi s chladnou vodou (p = 0,04) byly srovnatelné – celkový čas, úspěšnost intubace terminálního ilea, detekce adenomů, délka zavedeného přístroje, objem spotřebované vody, nutnost komprese břicha a nestandardní polohy pacienta, obtížnost vyšetření z pohledu endoskopisty a teplotní vjemy pacientů. Závěr: Ve srovnání s vodní imerzí s teplou vodou nedošlo při použití chladné vody ke změně času do intubace céka. Ostatní charakteristiky s výjimkou potřeby komprese břicha byly také srovnatelné. Kolonoskopie ve vodní imerzi s použitím chladné vody se zdá být srovnatelnou a technicky méně náročnou alternativou vodní imerze s teplou vodou.
Water-aided insertion as an alternative colonoscopy technique reduces patient's discomfort during the procedure. Warm water has been used in most of the published trials. Infusion of cool water is technically less demanding and a proof of its efficacy could support the use of water-aided technique in routine practice. Method: In a double-blind, randomized, single-centre study, a total of 201 patients were randomized to either cool water (20–24 °C) or warm water (37 °C) immersion insertion. The main outcome was a caecal intubation time. Results: Caecal intubation time was comparable; 6.9 ? 3.5 min in cool water vs 7.0 ? 3.4 min in warm water arm (P = 0.64). Success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy (89.1% for cool water vs 90% for warm water, P = 1.00) and discomfort during colonoscopy (P = 0.51) were not different. All other outcomes except higher need for abdominal compression in cool water arm (P = 0.04) were comparable – total procedure time, terminal ileum intubation rate, adenoma detection, length of the inserted scope, water volume, nonstandard position rate, difficulty of the procedure and patient‘s temperature sensation. Conclusion: In comparison with warm water immersion, the use of cool water did not modify the caecal intubation time. Other characteristics with the exception of abdominal compression rate were not different. Cool water immersion seems to be a comparable alternative to a technically more demanding warm water immersion colonoscopy. Key words: colonoscopy – colorectal cancer – water immersion – cool water The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study. The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE „uniform requirements“ for biomedical papers. Submitted: 2. 7. 2013 Accepted: 1. 8. 2013
- Keywords
- chladná voda,
- MeSH
- Adenoma diagnosis MeSH
- Conscious Sedation MeSH
- Time Factors MeSH
- Double-Blind Method MeSH
- Colonoscopy * methods standards statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Colorectal Neoplasms diagnosis MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Pain Measurement statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Midazolam administration & dosage MeSH
- Cold Temperature * diagnostic use MeSH
- Posture MeSH
- Patient Satisfaction statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Statistics as Topic MeSH
- Water * administration & dosage diagnostic use MeSH
- Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Hot Temperature diagnostic use MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze and synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) interventions in the prevention of pain, fear and anxiety during burn wound care procedures. METHODS: In September and October 2021, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for relevant randomized controlled and crossover studies. Two independent authors described the following inclusion criteria for the search: patients undergoing burn wound care with applied VR treatment compared to any other or non-VR intervention. From a total of 1171 records, 25 met the inclusion criteria. After full-text screening, seven publications were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed for 18 studies by two independent authors. RevMan 5.4 was used for the statistical analysis, meta-analysis and visual presentation of the results. RESULTS: The meta-analysis showed a significant difference between VR treatment and standard care when analyzing pain outcome during wound care procedures (SMD = -0.49; 95% CI [-0.78, -0.15]; I2 = 41%) and in subgroup analysis when immersive VR was incorporated (SMD = -0.71; 95% CI [-1.07, -0.36]; I2 = 0%). No significant differences were found between VR treatment and standard care for range of motion outcome (SMD = 0.44; 95% CI [-0.23, 1.11]; I2 = 50%). CONCLUSIONS: VR seems to be an effective therapeutic support in burn wound care procedures for reducing pain. However, this systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the need for more research into the use of VR as a distraction method. Studies on larger groups using similar conditions can provide unequivocal evidence of the effectiveness of VR and enable the inclusion of such intervention in standard medical procedures.
- MeSH
- Pain MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Pain Management methods MeSH
- Burns * therapy MeSH
- Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy * MeSH
- Virtual Reality * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Meta-Analysis MeSH
- Review MeSH
- Systematic Review MeSH
- MeSH
- Epilepsy, Reflex MeSH
- Hippocampus MeSH
- Rats MeSH
- Neurons MeSH
- Penicillins adverse effects MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Check Tag
- Rats MeSH
- Animals MeSH
