Skip to main content

Immersive virtual reality for acupuncture knowledge and practical skills: a comparative educational study

Journal
Frontiers in public health (Q1)
Published
27 August 2026
Study design
Randomized controlled trial
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
Authors
Lingyi Wu, Vigneshkumar Chellappa, Qi Xie, Xuan Mao, Yan Luximon, Riji Yu
PMID
42724017
DOI
10.3389/fpubh.2026.1922688

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture education requires mastery of complex theoretical concepts and psychomotor skills, yet conventional teaching often struggles to bridge the gap between abstract knowledge and hands-on application. This study evaluated the association of an immersive virtual reality-based acupuncture training system, PainEaseVR, with posttest learning outcomes when used as a supplement to conventional acupuncture education. METHODS: A stratified, randomized, posttest comparison study was conducted with 60 third-year undergraduate students majoring in Traditional Chinese Medicine. Participants were assigned to either an experimental group using PainEaseVR (n = 30) or a control group receiving conventional instruction (n = 30). Both groups completed 12 h of instruction, including 6 h of theoretical teaching and 6 h of practical training. Learning outcomes were assessed using a 12-item theoretical knowledge test, an 18-indicator practical skills assessment, and an 11-item student feedback questionnaire. RESULTS: The VR group achieved higher scores in theoretical knowledge (M = 10.08, SD = 0.99) than the traditional group (M = 9.04, SD = 1.31). The VR group also outperformed the traditional group in practical skills (M = 32.52, SD = 2.28 vs. M = 28.62, SD = 2.77). Students in the VR group reported higher satisfaction, engagement, and confidence across all feedback items. CONCLUSION: PainEaseVR appears to be a promising supplementary tool for acupuncture education. The findings suggest that VR was associated with higher scores in acupuncture knowledge and practical skills, as well as a more engaging learning experience, within the context of this posttest comparison study.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.