Table 3.
Subgroup analysis for participants’ responses on the ratings for VR and 3DPHM.a Reprinted with permission under the open access from Lau et al. [52].
| Question | Doctors’ Group, n = 9 |
Non-Doctors’ Group, n = 20 |
Mann–Whitney U-Value | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Option | |||||
| Rate the usefulness of VR models in medical education | 4 (11.22) | 4 (16.70) | 56.00 | 0.07 | |
| Rate the usefulness of 3DPHM in medical education | 4 (11.11) | 5 (16.75) | 55.00 | 0.07 | |
| Rate the usefulness of VR models in pre-operative planning | 4 (11.06) | 4 (16.77) | 54.50 | 0.07 | |
| Rate the usefulness of 3DPHM in pre-operative planning | 4 (12.39) | 4.5 (16.18) | 66.50 | 0.23 | |
3DPHM—3D-printed heart models; VR, virtual reality. a Data are median score (mean rank).