Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pelvic movement training has become compulsory for part of medical students. An increasing amount of research has focused on the influence of virtual reality (VR) on learning effectiveness. However, its application to pelvic floor muscles or pelvic movement training is still in its infancy. We compared the effectiveness of conventional pelvic movement training with or without VR-assisted pelvic movement training for student learning. METHODS: We recruited 44 university students (16 male and 28 female participants; average age = 19.7 ± 0.31 years) who had not previously received pelvic movement education or training. The participants were randomly assigned into traditional and experimental groups to acquire pelvic movements and relevant knowledge. The traditional group received conventional classes (about 15 min), whereas the experimental group received both conventional classes and VR-assisted teaching (additional VR session took approximately 25-45 min depending on the speed of movement of each participant). The participants were asked to control the trajectory of the centre of pressure on the Wii Fit balance board and build-in games to learn pelvic movements. We conducted evaluations before, immediately after, and 2 weeks after the experiment, based on the scores of written and practical examinations. The experimental group was also asked to complete a questionnaire during the posttest. RESULTS: We carried out two-way repeated measures ANOVA and discovered that the written examination scores indicated a significant Time × Group interaction (p=0.015). In each group, the written and practical examinations in the posttest and follow-up test exhibited significantly improved results compared with the baseline value (p <0.001, except for traditional group of written exam in follow up test vs. baseline p=0.001). The written examination in the follow-up test did not decline significantly compared with those in the posttest, but the practical examination in the follow-up test was decline significantly compared with those in the posttest (p=0.033). The experimental group had superior overall performance in the practical examinations than the traditional group (experimental group: mean = 76.27, 95% confidence level [CI] = 70.84-81.71; traditional group: mean = 64.21, 95% CI = 58.78-69.65). No significant difference in the written examination between two groups. The percentage for agreement ratio on the usefulness, ease of use, users' intention to continue using the VR-assisted teaching is high (95.5-100%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggested that conventional and conventional + VR teaching were both effective. However, the incorporation of VR stimulated learning motivation and facilitated precise performance of pelvic movements. It is recommended that pelvic floor muscles training could be supplemented with VR or games to increase students' motivation and understanding how to perform pelvic movements.