Evidence and outcomes

The papers page lists independently peer-reviewed research: findings reviewed by a journal or conference before publication. This page is different. It collects program evaluations and client- or partner-reported outcomes for PTR's VR training work: figures gathered and reported by the organisation that ran the programme, not independently reviewed before publication. Both are useful, but a client-reported outcome is not the same kind of evidence as a peer-reviewed finding, and this page states the source and sample for every figure below.

The VR build's 'Touch to start speaking' interaction screen, used to begin a conversation scenario in the Mater pilot. — Mater Education's Speaking with Good Judgement pilot.

A patient room scene from the VR module built with Mayo Clinic nursing staff. — Mayo Clinic's A Day In A Lifetime programme.

Mater Education program evaluation

Program evaluation

Mater Education's own program evaluation of its "Speaking with Good Judgement: Through the Looking Glass" VR pilot reported the figures below. Figures as reported by Mater Education following the program evaluation.

93%

enjoyed the experience, per Mater's own program evaluation.

90%

showed increased focus compared with conventional delivery, per Mater.

77%

found the VR scenarios more engaging than face-to-face delivery, per Mater.

96%

wanted more VR training in future programmes, per Mater.

Mayo Clinic post-class survey and program evaluation

Program evaluation (see the papers page for the peer-reviewed controlled trial)

Alongside its controlled-trial findings (see the papers page), the JONA paper also reports participant survey results from the programme's rollout. Of 1,131 leaders who attended, 593 (52.4%) completed a post-class education survey: 91.9% agreed or strongly agreed they achieved the learning objectives, and 90.3% agreed the debrief was effective, though only 61.1% rated the overall activity "very good" or "excellent." A separate, randomised program evaluation found 86.2% felt the VR simulation was valuable to their professional growth and 89.2% would repeat it, while fewer felt the simulation represented real people (66.3%) or that the avatar felt like them (55.8%).

Read the full Mayo Clinic summary

Central Coast Council: community adoption

Other reported figure

People Tech Revolution's own published case-study material states that its VR disability-awareness experience, co-designed with Central Coast Council's Access and Inclusion Reference Group, "has been implemented across the community more than 200 times and has been incorporated into teacher training programs, internal council staff and CSIRO facilitated training sessions." This is PTR's own reported adoption figure; no independent program evaluation of it was found in this audit.

Esuarve: program outcomes

Other reported figure

Esuarve reports a 79% reduction in reoffending and 90% of participants moving into education or employment across its program. These outcomes reflect the full mentoring program, not the VR component in isolation.

First-person VR view of a hand pouring water into a saucepan at a kitchen sink, from the Cook It food education module.

Cook-It: classroom engagement (Foodstream Network)

Other reported figure, small sample

Foodstream Network's own case-study material for "Cook It!," a VR cooking and food-education tool built with PTR for New York City schools, reports that 80% of students (9 of 12) actively chose to participate in the VR experience, that 100% of students spent over eight minutes in the activity, often needing encouragement to stop, and a 75% recall rate when students were later asked to identify and spell ingredients. These figures come from a single reported classroom session with a small sample (9 to 12 students) and are Foodstream Network's own reporting, not an independent evaluation.

How to read this page

None of the outcomes above were independently peer-reviewed, and none were caused by, or are claimed as, an independent effect of People Tech Revolution alone; they are the reporting organisation's own figures about its own programme. Where a qualifier or a small sample size is stated by the source, it is reproduced here rather than smoothed over.

Peer-reviewed research

Reviewed by a journal or conference before publication. See the papers page.

Program evaluation

Gathered and reported by the organisation that ran the programme, not independently reviewed.

Other reported figure

A claim published by PTR or a partner with no independent evaluation located in this audit.