Mayo Clinic nursing leaders who trained in VR improved on empathy and speaking up, measured against a control group.
By Kim Loza, Head of Product at People Tech Revolution
The moment
The training put nursing leaders in a staff breakroom and a patient room where a colleague meets racial bias, then asked them to respond.
The study
Researchers compared leaders who took the training with a control group and published the results in Social Science and Medicine.
Each situation paired embodiment, where the participant experiences bias as a Black nurse avatar, with rehearsal, where they practise responding as themselves.
Classes combined the VR scenes with small-group debriefs led by trained facilitators.
Nurse and social worker leaders across Mayo Clinic campuses in the United States. Our summary of the Mayo Clinic research sets out both published papers and how each was run.
The results
The training group improved relative to the control group on empathic feeling, perspective-taking and the intention to speak up.
Scores in the intervention group rose by an average of 0.11 points while the control group’s fell by 0.02. The difference between the groups carried a p-value of 0.002.
The intervention group rose 0.20 points, against 0.02 for the control group.
The paper reports gains, relative to the control group, in the predictors of upstander behaviour and in the likelihood of acting when a coworker is treated in a racially biased way.
When the leaders were measured again months after the training, the increases were still significant.
Why it matters
A comparison group shows what the training added over the same months. That is the question a budget holder asks.
The same rehearsal method sits behind de-escalation training for healthcare workers and hospital training built with Mater Education.
For the wider picture, read what the published research says about VR training.
The wider evidence
This trial sits inside a larger body of research. Reviews that pool many studies find moderate gains; single trials, and the evidence on de-escalation itself, are more mixed.
Standardised effect of training against a comparison group; a higher bar is a bigger difference. The reviews call these effects small to moderate.
Sources: the reviews listed under Sources below, each quoted from its published abstract.
An umbrella review of eleven reviews found VR raised empathy in health care education by a standardised 0.47. A 2024 meta-analysis of simulation in nursing education found stronger effects in newer studies.
In a 2025 randomised trial with 180 mental health professionals, VR improved attitudes and stigma but not empathy scores, and the comparison group improved as much. A Cochrane review found empathy gains when experts rated them, not when simulated patients did.
For de-escalation training itself, Cochrane found one eligible trial and rated the evidence very low. Ask any provider for a comparison group and a measure of behaviour, not only self-report.
In a 2026 randomised trial, dental students who practised with an AI virtual patient outscored classmates who role-played with each other on consultation completeness, 86.4 against 73.8, with gains still present three months later. See AI roleplay practice and does VR training work?
Questions
Short answers for training, clinical and people leaders.
Scenes set in a staff breakroom and a patient room, each with an embodiment part and a rehearsal part, delivered in facilitated classes.
Both are built the same way: a realistic moment, a response rehearsed out loud, and a debrief. VR de-escalation training applies that method to aggression.
The paper is in Social Science and Medicine, linked below. See also the Mater case study.
Free to quote and cite with a link to this page. Name the version you read, so readers can see what has changed since.
APA 7
Loza, K. (2026, September 24). What a controlled trial of VR empathy training found (Version 1.1). People Tech Revolution. https://peopletechrevolution.com/insights/vr-empathy-training-study
Data: The published trial (Social Science & Medicine) and its companion paper (JONA), read in full. Every figure is the authors’ own.
| Version | Date | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| Version 1.1 | Added the wider evidence: pooled effect sizes from systematic reviews, trials where the evidence is mixed, and an AI virtual patient trial. | |
| Version 1.0 | First published. |
Weighing VR training for your team?
The published papers, on the publishers’ own sites.

Eleven reviews pooled; VR SMD 0.47.

Twenty-eight studies pooled.

Communication and empathy, by who rated them.

Attitudes improved; empathy did not.

AI virtual patient against peer role-play.

One eligible trial; very low certainty.

The controlled trial behind these results.

The abstract, with the findings relative to the control group.

The companion paper on the same program’s rollout and evaluation.
Mayo Clinic nursing leaders who trained in VR improved on empathy and speaking up, measured against a control group.
By Kim Loza, Head of Product at People Tech Revolution
The moment
The training put nursing leaders in a staff breakroom and a patient room where a colleague meets racial bias, then asked them to respond.
The study
Researchers compared leaders who took the training with a control group and published the results in Social Science and Medicine.
Each situation paired embodiment, where the participant experiences bias as a Black nurse avatar, with rehearsal, where they practise responding as themselves.
Classes combined the VR scenes with small-group debriefs led by trained facilitators.
Nurse and social worker leaders across Mayo Clinic campuses in the United States. Our summary of the Mayo Clinic research sets out both published papers and how each was run.
The results
The training group improved relative to the control group on empathic feeling, perspective-taking and the intention to speak up.
Scores in the intervention group rose by an average of 0.11 points while the control group’s fell by 0.02. The difference between the groups carried a p-value of 0.002.
The intervention group rose 0.20 points, against 0.02 for the control group.
The paper reports gains, relative to the control group, in the predictors of upstander behaviour and in the likelihood of acting when a coworker is treated in a racially biased way.
When the leaders were measured again months after the training, the increases were still significant.
Why it matters
A comparison group shows what the training added over the same months. That is the question a budget holder asks.
The same rehearsal method sits behind de-escalation training for healthcare workers and hospital training built with Mater Education.
For the wider picture, read what the published research says about VR training.
The wider evidence
This trial sits inside a larger body of research. Reviews that pool many studies find moderate gains; single trials, and the evidence on de-escalation itself, are more mixed.
Standardised effect of training against a comparison group; a higher bar is a bigger difference. The reviews call these effects small to moderate.
Sources: the reviews listed under Sources below, each quoted from its published abstract.
An umbrella review of eleven reviews found VR raised empathy in health care education by a standardised 0.47. A 2024 meta-analysis of simulation in nursing education found stronger effects in newer studies.
In a 2025 randomised trial with 180 mental health professionals, VR improved attitudes and stigma but not empathy scores, and the comparison group improved as much. A Cochrane review found empathy gains when experts rated them, not when simulated patients did.
For de-escalation training itself, Cochrane found one eligible trial and rated the evidence very low. Ask any provider for a comparison group and a measure of behaviour, not only self-report.
In a 2026 randomised trial, dental students who practised with an AI virtual patient outscored classmates who role-played with each other on consultation completeness, 86.4 against 73.8, with gains still present three months later. See AI roleplay practice and does VR training work?
Questions
Short answers for training, clinical and people leaders.
Scenes set in a staff breakroom and a patient room, each with an embodiment part and a rehearsal part, delivered in facilitated classes.
Both are built the same way: a realistic moment, a response rehearsed out loud, and a debrief. VR de-escalation training applies that method to aggression.
The paper is in Social Science and Medicine, linked below. See also the Mater case study.
Free to quote and cite with a link to this page. Name the version you read, so readers can see what has changed since.
APA 7
Loza, K. (2026, September 24). What a controlled trial of VR empathy training found (Version 1.1). People Tech Revolution. https://peopletechrevolution.com/insights/vr-empathy-training-study
Data: The published trial (Social Science & Medicine) and its companion paper (JONA), read in full. Every figure is the authors’ own.
| Version | Date | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| Version 1.1 | Added the wider evidence: pooled effect sizes from systematic reviews, trials where the evidence is mixed, and an AI virtual patient trial. | |
| Version 1.0 | First published. |
Weighing VR training for your team?
The published papers, on the publishers’ own sites.

Eleven reviews pooled; VR SMD 0.47.

Twenty-eight studies pooled.

Communication and empathy, by who rated them.

Attitudes improved; empathy did not.

AI virtual patient against peer role-play.

One eligible trial; very low certainty.

The controlled trial behind these results.

The abstract, with the findings relative to the control group.

The companion paper on the same program’s rollout and evaluation.