Abstract
BACKGROUND: Beyond its applications in other settings, virtual reality (VR) technology has gained attention in medical education, offering immersive learning experiences. Previous research has demonstrated its potential as an educational tool in medical settings, highlighting enhanced educational outcomes, skill acquisition and retention, standardized training experiences, and the promotion of active learning. However, there is still a dearth of research exploring various aspects of VR user experiences, with most studies focusing on its effect on skill acquisition. Limited qualitative research further hinders an in-depth understanding of user experiences, restricting a comprehensive overview of VR's potential in medical education. OBJECTIVE: This study explored subjective experiences with VR simulation training and its perceived benefits and challenges among medical students in the United Kingdom, using the 5 domains of the Immersive Technology Evaluation Measure (ITEM). METHODS: In July 2024, 15- to 20-minute in-person interviews were conducted with 11 medical students who had completed the immersive VR training consisting of the assessment and treatment of a virtual patient. Guided by the 5 domains of the ITEM as preconceived themes, a deductive thematic analysis was used to explore individual experiences with the training, embedded within narrative responses. RESULTS: Findings aligned with the 5 a priori ITEM domains of system usability, immersion, motivation, cognitive load, and debriefing. Within these predefined domains, new subthemes emerged that enhanced the understanding of user experience. Participants reported usability barriers involving accessibility, technical issues, and limited variability in scenarios. Immersion was generally strong due to realistic environments, although reduced interactivity constrained authenticity. Motivation was reflected in active engagement and a greater sense of preparedness for clinical practice. Cognitive load was associated with divided attention, physical effects, and a need for clearer guidance and familiarization. Ultimately, participants valued debriefing sessions as valuable opportunities for reflection and reinforcing knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: VR training fosters immersion and motivation, but its effectiveness depends on balancing technical usability with cognitive demands. Future integration should prioritize design variability and structured debriefing to optimize learning outcomes. Refinement of immersive VR training in clinical education is also warranted, alongside further research in broader contexts and longitudinal use.