Outcomes
SECONDARY
For the primary outcome, the group self-practicing on the desktop VR application (36% had everything correct) was non-inferior to the traditional paper-based group (22% had everything correct), with a difference of 14.2% points (one-sided 95% CI 2.9 to 14.2) on the primary outcome (Fig. The difference between the VR and TP groups on sorting patient information, based on ISBAR. Legends: If the horizontal one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) had crossed or been to the left of the vertical non-inferior limit, desktop virtual reality (VR) would not be non-inferior. Abbreviations: VR = desktop virtual reality; Primary outcome and secondary outcomes. Numbers (%) of participants for each group and difference in percentage points with a two-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) between the groupsAbbreviations: For the secondary outcomes, the desktop VR groups had an average of 1.8 complete runs of the practice (distribution in Table The number of completed runs (briefing-rehearsal-debriefing)Abbreviations: The outcomes placing the correct patient information within its correct ISBAR category were similar in the two groups, except for the category The outcomes from the students’ experiences with the self-perceived learning outcome indicated that the desktop VR group performed either non-inferior or better than the TP group (Table Secondary outcomes on the students’ experiences with self-perceived learning outcomes and perceived usability of simulation methods. Numbers (%) of participants for each group and difference in percentage points with a two-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) between groupsPerceived usability of the simulation method: - System Usability Scale (range 0–100, higher better) mean score (standard deviation SD)Mean 78.6(SD 14.2)Mean 76.3(SD 18.4)**Abbreviations: 