Skepticism towards advancing VR technology - student acceptance of VR as a teaching and assessment tool in medicine.

Objective: The high didactic potential of Virtual Reality (VR) contrasts with the point of view of students that the technology only has a relatively low significance for current and future teaching. This discrepancy was studied in a differentiated manner in order to gear the further development and implementation of VR towards the target group. Methods: From January 2020 to July 2020, medical students (N=318) were asked to watch ten videos online and rate them on the basis of acceptance indicators (e.g., fun and fairness). Using obstetrics as an example, the videos demonstrated five levels of VR technology functionality (e.g., haptic and adaptive feedback), some of which were visionary, in two use scenarios (teaching and the OSCE). The individual and aggregate indicators were compared with non-parametric testing procedures across application scenarios, functional levels and genders. In addition, correlations between the acceptance and the factors of semester, age, computer affinity, and previous VR experience were analyzed. Results: Across all functional levels, VR was more likely to be accepted in the classroom than in the OSCE. Comparisons across functional levels also revealed that the VR ready to be marketed was significantly more accepted than the visionary functions. This skepticism toward advancing VR technology was most pronounced with regard to the vision of autonomous VR examinations and among female students with a low computer affinity. Conclusion: The results suggest that the students' reservations are due to a lack of experience with the VR technology. In order for young physicians to become familiar with the technology and to be able to use it competently in the everyday clinical practice in the future, VR should not only be used as a teaching tool but also be part of the curriculum. Practical examinations using VR, on the other hand, are only recommended once the technology has become established in teaching and has been proven to be reliable.

General well-being as an important co-factor of self-assessment of dental appearance.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to correlate the general well-being of patients and their judgment about their dental appearance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on internationally accepted guidelines regarding dental esthetics, a questionnaire was developed to measure subjective assessments of dental appearance. Fourteen items defined an esthetic sum score (0 = satisfied; 56 = dissatisfied). Further, general well-being was evaluated with a long-established and highly reliable test. Eighty participants were included (47 women, 33 men). Participants were.drawn from 4 different groups (n = 20): natural dentition (group N), fixed partial dentures (group F), removable partial dentures (group R), and patients who had an esthetic problem with their teeth (group P). RESULTS: Seventy-five participants showed a normal well-being. Five participants showed a depressive state and formed a new group (group D). The medians of the sum scores (25th, 75th percentile) were: group N: 12 (10, 14); group F: 14 (8, 29); group R: 14 (9, 27); group P: 23 (18, 35); group D: 30 (26, 35). Significant differences were found between groups N and P, as well as between group D and groups N, F, and R. CONCLUSION: Because of the significant difference between groups N and P, basis validation of the sum score was achieved. Further, self-assessments of dental appearance appeared to be more negative for participants with a depressive state compared with the other groups. In clinical studies, selection bias can be prevented by using a test that measures well-being to verify if a study sample includes a normal number of depressive subjects and therefore represents the general population.