JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

High-quality wound care requires early and effective interprofessional collaboration between medical, nursing, and pharmacy professionals. However, interprofessional education (IPE) in this context remains limited in higher education. Immersive virtual reality (iVR) seems to be a promising IPE tool, enabling a standardized, realistic, and safe learning environment that allows multiple learners from different professions to train together. However, its educational effectiveness depends on an instructional design that supports learning while managing cognitive demands during immersive experiences.

Objective:

This study examined whether a newly developed interprofessional iVR wound-care training improves (1) procedural knowledge and (2) willingness to collaborate among medical, nursing, and pharmacy students, and how cognitive load relates to these outcomes.

Methods:

A within-subjects design with a pre- and posttest was implemented with 116 students from medicine, nursing, and pharmacy. Students completed two iVR sessions (~25 and 15 minutes) in interprofessional triads, addressing a pressure-ulcer case. The training integrated step-by-step scaffolding for the wound care task, and collaboration scripts to guide teamwork. Procedural knowledge and willingness to collaborate were assessed before and after the sessions, and cognitive load was measured after the sessions. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANCOVAs and a mediation model to test the preregistered effects.

Results:

Procedural knowledge increased significantly from pre- to posttest, F(1,107) = 26.19, p < .001, η² = .08. Cognitive load showed no significant effect on this gain. Willingness to collaborate did not change after the first session, F(1,80) = 3.55, p = .063, η² = .01, and was unaffected by cognitive load. Exploratory analyses showed that willingness to collaborate was significantly higher after the second session, t(64) = 3.16, p = .007, mean difference = 0.202). The effect on procedural knowledge and willingness to collaborate did not depend on the learner’s profession.

Conclusions:

These findings suggest that the iVR training effectively supported learning by providing clear structure and managing cognitive demands, enabling students from different professions to acquire procedural knowledge without being hindered by excessive cognitive load. The absence of cognitive load effects indicates that the instructional design, combining scaffolding and collaboration scripts, successfully balanced task complexity and guidance within the immersive environment. The delayed increase in collaboration willingness further suggests that attitudinal change requires sustained, repeated engagement in interprofessional contexts rather than a single exposure. Notably, no profession-related differences emerged in either procedural knowledge or willingness to collaborate, indicating that the iVR training supported learners equally across professional backgrounds. Overall, the results highlight the potential of iVR as a scalable, theory-based approach to IPE that can bridge disciplinary boundaries and prepare learners for effective teamwork in clinical practice.