Virtual Reality in Health Professions Education: Qualitative Descriptive Study of Educators’ Perspectives

Background: As virtual reality (VR) technology has become more accessible, the potential of this technology has been increasingly investigated in higher education institutions to improve teaching and learning. While VR can provide immersive experiences to support visualization and active learning, its adoption in health professions education is often limited by high costs, technical complexity, and a lack of pedagogical fit. Furthermore, the educator, who is critical to curriculum design, is underrepresented in the discourse on VR integration, especially in resource-constrained environments in South Africa. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of health professions educators regarding the potential value of immersive VR in the educational process, the implementation barriers, and the requirements for successful curriculum integration at a South African university. Methods: A qualitative exploratory descriptive design was used. Eighteen educators (N=18) from a wide variety of health disciplines (including physiotherapy, occupational therapy, nursing, and dentistry) were recruited from the Faculty of Community and Health Sciences. Participants interacted with 3 immersive VR applications (The Body VR, Sharecare You VR, and Wraith VR), which were chosen to represent varying levels of clinical complexity. Semistructured interviews were used to explore their perceptions. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis in accordance with the framework of Braun and Clarke. Sample size adequacy was determined using information power. Results: Five overall themes were constructed from the data: (1) the experience of VR, where educators enjoyed the engagement but initially felt that VR was a "gaming" novelty; (2) teaching and learning preferences, where VR was considered a potential tool for authentic and individualized learning; (3) challenges of VR, where issues of visual overload, cybersickness, and logistical barriers were reported; (4) clinical competency and patient safety, where VR was valued as a safe space to manage errors; and (5) curriculum integration, where there was a preference for scaffolding the use of VR from foundational anatomy in the junior years to procedural simulation. Conclusions: Educators have a favorable view of VR as a powerful supplemental tool that can help boost student engagement and bridge the gap between theory and clinical practice. However, successful implementation involves more than purchasing hardware; it requires a strategic "scaffolded integration" approach that ensures VR applications align with specific curricular outcomes. It is the role of institutions to not only provide technical assistance but also pedagogical training and support for infrastructure to transform a technological gimmick into an ongoing educational resource.