Randomized trial evaluates the feasibility of mixed reality in BLS training for medical students, suggesting potential benefits for integration.
Background Simulation-based basic life support (BLS) training often lacks patient-level and contextual realism. Mixed reality (MR) may enrich manikin-based simulation with virtual patient cues while preserving tactile interaction. This study evaluated the feasibility of integrating collocated MR-supported BLS training into undergraduate instruction. Methods We conducted a single-centre, 1:1 randomised pilot feasibility trial embedded within an 8-hour BLS course. First-year medical students were randomised to MR-supported or conventional training. Feasibility domains included course integration, same-day safety and technical delivery, learner-reported workload, and exploratory MR-specific usability and acceptability feedback. Secondary learner-reported outcomes included self-efficacy, situational motivation, student satisfaction and self-confidence in learning. Results Sixty-one students participated (MR n = 31; control n = 30), of whom 53 completed the post-training questionnaire (MR n = 24; control n = 29). MR-supported training was delivered within the scheduled course. No technical failures prevented delivery, and no falls, severe discomfort, or headset-related events requiring discontinuation were recorded. Learner-reported workload did not differ significantly between groups (NASA Task Load Index mean difference, MR minus control: 0.63; 95% CI -1.20 to 2.47; p = 0.49). Secondary learner-reported outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. Exploratory open-ended feedback from 10 of 31 participants in the MR arm identified areas for refinement, including headset stability, avatar responsiveness, and integration into teaching; views of added value were mixed. Conclusions Collocated MR-supported BLS training could be integrated into undergraduate instruction, with no evidence of higher learner-reported workload. Further refinements should precede larger evaluations of objective BLS performance, retention, and transfer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maiershon et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: