. 2021 Jan 21;36(1):126–134. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-08246-4

Table 3.

Evaluation of the technology potential for training and clinical use by profession

Participants	Medical student training	Resident training	Clinical use	Nurse training	p value
Medical students	4 (4–5) 84.2%	4 (4–5) 85.7%	4 (4–5) 87.7%	3 (2–4) 31.6%	< 0.001¹
Resident surgeons	4 (3–5) 85.7%	4 (4–5) 76.5%	4 (4–5) 64.7%	3.5 (3–4.75) 50%	0.14
Attending surgeons	4 (3–5) 76.9%	4 (4–5) 69.2%	4 (3–5) 69.2%	3 (2–4) 38.5%	0.093
Nurses	4 (4–5) 94.3%	4 (4–5) 92.5%	5 (4–5) 84.9%	5 (4–5) 86.8%	0.069

Participants

Medical student training

Resident training

Clinical use

Nurse training

p value

Medical students

4 (4–5)

84.2%

4 (4–5)

85.7%

4 (4–5)

87.7%

3 (2–4)

31.6%

< 0.001¹

Resident surgeons

4 (3–5)

85.7%

4 (4–5)

76.5%

4 (4–5)

64.7%

3.5 (3–4.75)

50%

0.14

Attending surgeons

4 (3–5)

76.9%

4 (4–5)

69.2%

4 (3–5)

69.2%

3 (2–4)

38.5%

0.093

Nurses

4 (4–5)

94.3%

4 (4–5)

92.5%

5 (4–5)

84.9%

5 (4–5)

86.8%

0.069

Answers displayed as median and interquartile ranges on the Likert scale, as well as percentage of positive responses (rating of 4 or 5). Significant p values in bold

¹Medical students’ assessment of potential for nurse training differed significantly from the assessment of potential for medical student training (p < 0.001), resident training (p < 0.001), and clinical use (p < 0.001)