Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 2, e469

Augmented Reality in Healthcare Education: An Integrative Review


Augmented Reality in Healthcare Education: An Integrative Review

Egui Zhu et al. PeerJ.


Background. The effective development of healthcare competencies poses great educational challenges. A possible approach to provide learning opportunities is the use of augmented reality (AR) where virtual learning experiences can be embedded in a real physical context. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of the art in terms of user acceptance, the AR applications developed and the effect of AR on the development of competencies in healthcare. Methods. We conducted an integrative review. Integrative reviews are the broadest type of research review methods allowing for the inclusion of various research designs to more fully understand a phenomenon of concern. Our review included multi-disciplinary research publications in English reported until 2012. Results. 2529 research papers were found from ERIC, CINAHL, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science and Springer-link. Three qualitative, 20 quantitative and 2 mixed studies were included. Using a thematic analysis, we've described three aspects related to the research, technology and education. This study showed that AR was applied in a wide range of topics in healthcare education. Furthermore acceptance for AR as a learning technology was reported among the learners and its potential for improving different types of competencies. Discussion. AR is still considered as a novelty in the literature. Most of the studies reported early prototypes. Also the designed AR applications lacked an explicit pedagogical theoretical framework. Finally the learning strategies adopted were of the traditional style 'see one, do one and teach one' and do not integrate clinical competencies to ensure patients' safety.

Keywords: Augmented reality; Medical education; Medical simulation.


Figure 1
Figure 1. Literature search and selection flow.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Characteristics of AR in medical education.
* This number is the total of unique participants for all the included papers. We used the largest number given for two groups (Botden et al., 2007; Botden et al., 2008; Botden, Hingh & Jakimowicz, 2009a; Botden, Hingh & Jakimowicz, 2009b; Leblanc et al., 2010a; Leblanc et al., 2010b; Leblanc et al., 2010c; Leblanc et al., 2010d), who published 4 papers; ** This number shows the type of computer system that was used in the included papers. Three papers did not describe a computer system (Karthikeyan et al., 2012; Sakellariou et al., 2009; Yudkowsky et al., 2012).

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 12 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles


    1. Al-Issa H, Regenbrecht H, Hale L. Augmented reality applications in rehabilitation to improve physical outcomes. Physical Therapy Reviews. 2012;17:16–28. doi: 10.1179/1743288X11Y.0000000051. - DOI
    1. Bajura M, Fuchs H, Ohbuchi R. Merging virtual objects with the real world: seeing ultrasound imagery within the patient. ACM. 1992;26(2):203–210. doi: 10.1145/142920.134061. - DOI
    1. Botden S, Buzink S, Schijven M, Jakimowicz J. Augmented versus virtual reality laparoscopic simulation: what is the difference? A comparison of the ProMIS augmented reality laparoscopic simulator versus LapSim virtual reality laparoscopic simulator. World Journal of Surgery. 2007;31(4):764–772. doi: 10.1007/s00268-006-0724-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Botden S, Buzink S, Schijven M, Jakimowicz J. ProMIS augmented reality training of laparoscopic procedures face validity. Simulation in Healthcare: Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 2008;3(2):97–102. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e3181659e91. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Botden S, Hingh I, Jakimowicz J. Meaningful assessment method for laparoscopic suturing training in augmented reality. Surgical Endoscopy. 2009a;23(10):2221–2228. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0276-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Grant support

The project was funded with intramural funds from Karolinska Institutet. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.