VIRTUAL SIMULATION FOR RADIATION PROTECTION EDUCATION AMONG UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL RADIOLOGY AND IMAGING TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS IN INDIA: EVIDENCE, CHALLENGES, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67772/fnkcp466Keywords:
virtual simulation, virtual reality, radiation protection, radiation safety, radiography education, BSc MRIT, medical imaging, IndiaAbstract
Background: Safe use of ionizing radiation is a core learning outcome for undergraduate Medical Radiology and Imaging Technology (MRIT) students. Their preparation must extend beyond knowledge of radiation physics to the practical application of justification, optimization, patient protection and occupational safety. Lectures and supervised clinical teaching remain indispensable, although students may have limited opportunities to rehearse uncommon or potentially hazardous situations repeatedly. Digital simulation can provide a controlled setting in which learners make safety decisions, observe modelled consequences and receive feedback without creating additional exposure for patients or staff.
Objective: This review considers how virtual simulation might be used to teach radiation protection, examines relevant findings from radiography and healthcare education, and explores its feasibility within Indian BSc MRIT programmes.
Review approach: A critical narrative approach is used to discuss selected publications on virtual reality, simulation-based imaging education and radiation-safety teaching. This is not a completed systematic review. A reproducible search and transparent study-selection process would be necessary before claiming comprehensive coverage of the literature.
Discussion: Potential learning activities include practising time-distance-shielding decisions, understanding scatter, selecting collimation and exposure factors, and recognizing opportunities to optimize dose. Published studies report encouraging learner responses and gains in some radiographic skills. Nevertheless, direct evidence of sustained improvements in radiation-protection behaviour, retention or clinical outcomes among Indian BSc MRIT students is not yet established. Cost, access to suitable devices, faculty preparation and curriculum alignment will influence implementation.
Conclusion: Virtual simulation is best considered an additional teaching method alongside classroom instruction, physical demonstrations and supervised clinical practice. Indian programmes should define the competencies to be taught, validate the scenarios and evaluate objective performance, retention, clinical transfer, accessibility and cost before wider adoption.
References
1.Ding X, Li Z. A review of the application of virtual reality technology in higher education based on Web of Science literature data as an example. Front Educ. 2022;7:1048816. doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.1048816.
2.Oyelere SS, Bouali N, Kaliisa R, Obaido G, Yunusa AA, Jimoh ER. Exploring the trends of educational virtual reality games: a systematic review of empirical studies. Smart Learn Environ. 2020;7:31. doi:10.1186/s40561-020-00142-7.
3.Zamyatina NV, Ushakova IA, Mandrikov VB. Medical education in digital transformation. In: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Digitalization of Education: History, Trends and Prospects” (DETP 2020). Atlantis Press; 2020:324-327. doi:10.2991/assehr.k.200509.059.
4.Kardong-Edgren S, Farra SL, Alinier G, Young HM. A call to unify definitions of virtual reality. Clin Simul Nurs. 2019;31:28-34. doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2019.02.006.
5.Sousa Santos B, Dias P, Pimentel A, et al. Head-mounted display versus desktop for 3D navigation in virtual reality: a user study. Multimed Tools Appl. 2009;41(1):161-181. doi:10.1007/s11042-008-0223-2.
6.Hamad A, Jia B. How virtual reality technology has changed our lives: an overview of the current and potential applications and limitations. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(18):11278. doi:10.3390/ijerph191811278.
7.Kaplan-Rakowski R, Meseberg K. Immersive media and their future. In: Branch RM, Lee H, Tseng S, editors. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook. Vol 42. Springer; 2019:143-153. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-27986-8_13.
8.Kuliga SF, Thrash T, Dalton RC, Hölscher C. Virtual reality as an empirical research tool—exploring user experience in a real building and a corresponding virtual model. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2015;54:363-375. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.09.006.
9.Guan H, Xu Y, Zhao D. Application of virtual reality technology in clinical practice, teaching, and research in complementary and alternative medicine. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2022;2022:1373170. doi:10.1155/2022/1373170.
10.Pottle J. Virtual reality and the transformation of medical education. Future Healthc J. 2019;6(3):181-185. doi:10.7861/fhj.2019-0036.
11.Satava RM, Jones SB. Current and future applications of virtual reality for medicine. Proc IEEE. 1998;86(3):484-489. doi:10.1109/5.662873.
12.Satava RM. Medical virtual reality: the current status of the future. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1996;29:100-106.
13.Rosenberg LB, Stredney D. A haptic interface for virtual simulation of endoscopic surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1996;29:371-387.
14.Chytas D, Salmas M, Demesticha T, et al. A review of the use of virtual reality for teaching radiology in conjunction with anatomy. Cureus. 2021;13(12):e20174. doi:10.7759/cureus.20174.
15.O’Connor M, Stowe J, Potocnik J, Giannotti N, Murphy S, Rainford L. 3D virtual reality simulation in radiography education: the students’ experience. Radiography. 2021;27(1):208-214. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2020.07.017.
16.Hart R, Karthigasu K. The benefits of virtual reality simulator training for laparoscopic surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19(4):297-302. doi:10.1097/GCO.0b013e328216f5b7.
17.Thomas DJ, Singh D. Letter to the editor: virtual reality in surgical training. Int J Surg. 2021;89:105935. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105935.
18.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71.
19.Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898.
20.McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias visualization (robvis): an R package and shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods. 2021;12(1):55-61. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1411.
21.Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical appraisal tools. Available from: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools. Accessed 25 April 2024.
22.Ahlqvist JB, Nilsson TA, Hedman LR, Desser TS, Dev P, Johansson M, Youngblood PL, Cheng RP, Gold GE. A randomized controlled trial on 2 simulation-based training methods in radiology: effects on radiologic technology student skill in assessing image quality. Simul Healthc. 2013;8(6):382-387. doi:10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182a60a48.
23.Bridge P, Gunn T, Kastanis L, et al. The development and evaluation of a medical imaging training immersive environment. J Med Radiat Sci. 2014;61(3):159-165. doi:10.1002/jmrs.60.
24.Gunn T, Jones L, Bridge P, Rowntree P, Nissen L. The use of virtual reality simulation to improve technical skill in the undergraduate medical imaging student. Interact Learn Environ. 2018;26(5):613-620. doi:10.1080/10494820.2017.1374981.
25.Gunn T, Rowntree P, Starkey D, Nissen L. The use of virtual reality computed tomography simulation within a medical imaging and a radiation therapy undergraduate programme. J Med Radiat Sci. 2021;68(1):28-36. doi:10.1002/jmrs.436.
26.Jensen J, Graumann O, Jensen RO, et al. Using virtual reality simulation for training practical skills in musculoskeletal wrist x-ray—a pilot study. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2023;13:20. doi:10.25259/JCIS_45_2023.
27.Kato K, Kon D, Ito T, Ichikawa S, Ueda K, Kuroda Y. Radiography education with VR using head mounted display: proficiency evaluation by rubric method. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22:579. doi:10.1186/s12909-022-03645-8.
28.Nilsson TA, Hedman LR, Ahlqvist JB. A randomized trial of simulation-based versus conventional training of dental student skill at interpreting spatial information in radiographs. Simul Healthc. 2007;2(3):164-169. doi:10.1097/SIH.0b013e31811ec254.
29.Nilsson TA, Hedman LR, Ahlqvist JB. Dental student skill retention eight months after simulator-supported training in oral radiology. J Dent Educ. 2011;75(5):679-684.
30.O’Connor M, Rainford L. The impact of 3D virtual reality radiography practice on student performance in clinical practice. Radiography. 2023;29(1):159-164. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2022.10.033.
31.Rainford L, Tcacenco A, Potocnik J, et al. Student perceptions of the use of three-dimensional virtual reality simulation in the delivery of radiation protection training for radiography and medical students. Radiography. 2023;29(4):777-785. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2023.05.009.
32.Rowe D, Garcia A, Rossi B. Comparison of virtual reality and physical simulation training in first-year radiography students in South America. J Med Radiat Sci. 2023;70(2):120-126. doi:10.1002/jmrs.639.
33.Sapkaroski D, Baird M, McInerney J, Dimmock MR. The implementation of a haptic feedback virtual reality simulation clinic with dynamic patient interaction and communication for medical imaging students. J Med Radiat Sci. 2018;65(3):218-225. doi:10.1002/jmrs.288.
34.Sapkaroski D, Baird M, Mundy M, Dimmock MR. Quantification of student radiographic patient positioning using an immersive virtual reality simulation. Simul Healthc. 2019;14(4):258-263. doi:10.1097/SIH.0000000000000380.
35.Sapkaroski D, Mundy M, Dimmock MR. Virtual reality versus conventional clinical role-play for radiographic positioning training: a students’ perception study. Radiography. 2020;26(1):57-62. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2019.08.001.
36.Shanahan M. Student perspective on using a virtual radiography simulation. Radiography. 2016;22(3):217-222. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2016.02.004.
37.Wu Y, Mondal P, Stewart M, Ngo R, Burbridge B. Bringing radiology education to a new reality: a pilot study of using virtual reality as a remote educational tool. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2023;74(2):251-263. doi:10.1177/08465371221142515.
38.Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. PRISMA2020: an R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022;18(2):e1230. doi:10.1002/cl2.1230.
39.King S, Boyer J, Bell T, Estapa A. An automated virtual reality training system for teacher-student interaction: a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Serious Games. 2022;10(4):e41097. doi:10.2196/41097.
40.Shetty S, Bhat S, Al Bayatti S, et al. The Scope of Virtual Reality Simulators in Radiology Education: Systematic Literature Review. JMIR Med Educ. 2024;10:e52953. doi:10.2196/52953.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026Copyright (c) 2026 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
