2
frequency and accessibility. Virtual reality (VR) training
may be a promising alternative.
VR as Effective Training
Previous research has shown that effective training is engag-
ing, authentic, and understandable and includes opportu-
nities to demonstrate, practice, debrief, and assess [4-6].
VR is a mechanism that supports all these characteristics.
Research has shown that immersive VR training helps
increase engagement, performance, and retention [7, 8].
Research also has shown that immersion and the added
realism of the VR increases saliency by eliciting more emo-
tional responses from the participants [9]. Additionally,
VR provides a safe means to simulate situations that would
otherwise be too dangerous or expensive. Other strengths
of VR are its ability to provide hands-on experience and
objectively measure performance.
VR in the Mining Industry: Slow Adoption and
Challenges
While VR has proven effective for training and assessment
in various industries—such as the military [10]—its adop-
tion within the mining industry has been slow. Research
and development of VR applications for mining began
about thirty years ago [11] with many specifically address-
ing mine safety training [12–14], but their scope and appli-
cation was limited. Since then, new applications have been
developed as summarized in a recent review and include
incident reconstruction simulations, hazard awareness
training, and equipment training [15]. These applications
have ranged from non-immersive desktop programs [16,
17] to head mounted displays (HMDs) and treadmill set-
ups [18], full-scale equipment simulators [19], and large
theater implementations [20]. However, these applications
still have limited content that may be less engaging and
impactful once the trainees have already done it.
Beyond limited content, other barriers and challenges
to the successful implementation of VR systems into mine
safety training programs exist, including costs, portability,
user acceptance, program integration, and limited indus-
try collaboration [21–28]. While VR equipment costs have
come down significantly in recent years, hardware costs can
still be prohibitive. Furthermore, the development costs for
the training content can outweigh the hardware investment
[29]. This can be problematic because sustained learning
and engagement relies on fresh content. Travel resources also
play a role, especially for permanent installations [25]. The
design of the system is another critical factor. User accep-
tance, based on system access, ease-of-use, comfort, and
perceived benefit is crucial for successful implementation
[30]. Lastly, previous research also suggests that dedicated
staff with some specialized training may be required to set
up, maintain, and operate these systems [31]. To prevent
inefficiencies and failures, further research on VR imple-
mentation is essential.
Implementation Science
Implementation science (IS) is an expanding field that
focuses on translating research findings into practical
actions within community settings. IS research is defined
as “the systematic investigation of the use of strategies to
enhance adoption, integration, and sustainment of evi-
dence-based health interventions in clinical and commu-
nity settings to improve individual and population health”
[32]. IS methodology asks researchers to consider how their
findings could be used throughout the project cycle. The
purpose of incorporating IS strategies into the development
and dissemination of innovations is to clear and shorten
the “pipeline” from research to practice. As summarized
in Guerin et al., IS methods have been shown to be effec-
tive in hastening this translation in several disciplines, but
critical gaps persist in the field of occupational safety and
health (OSH) [32]. Furthermore, while IS frameworks
have helped to facilitate and evaluate the translation of
research into practice for several decades, such frameworks
have been predominantly utilized for the post-hoc evalua-
tion of implementation efforts [33]. Instead, Glasgow et al.
advocate for the rapid and repeated use of IS strategies to
inform iterative adjustments to the intervention and bet-
ter facilitate the translation of research into practice [33].
This approach was successfully used in a rapid pre-imple-
mentation evaluation to identify key design factors and
implementation strategies for a family engagement naviga-
tor program during COVID-19 [34]. Skivington et al. also
highlight that engaging stakeholders and identifying uncer-
tainties early can improve the feasibility and acceptability of
an intervention [35]. They argue that early and continuous
engagement enables iterative adaptations and refinements,
ensuring the intervention better fits its intended context.
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research
The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research
(CFIR) is a comprehensive IS framework designed to
help identify factors that influence implementation suc-
cess. CFIR was first introduced in 2009 [36] and has been
used in a wide range of studies [37] and continues to be
updated and used today [34, 38]. The CFIR 2.0 is made
up of five domains—Innovation, Outer Setting, Inner
Setting, Individuals, and Implementation Process—that
each include a variety of constructs. Table 1 describes
frequency and accessibility. Virtual reality (VR) training
may be a promising alternative.
VR as Effective Training
Previous research has shown that effective training is engag-
ing, authentic, and understandable and includes opportu-
nities to demonstrate, practice, debrief, and assess [4-6].
VR is a mechanism that supports all these characteristics.
Research has shown that immersive VR training helps
increase engagement, performance, and retention [7, 8].
Research also has shown that immersion and the added
realism of the VR increases saliency by eliciting more emo-
tional responses from the participants [9]. Additionally,
VR provides a safe means to simulate situations that would
otherwise be too dangerous or expensive. Other strengths
of VR are its ability to provide hands-on experience and
objectively measure performance.
VR in the Mining Industry: Slow Adoption and
Challenges
While VR has proven effective for training and assessment
in various industries—such as the military [10]—its adop-
tion within the mining industry has been slow. Research
and development of VR applications for mining began
about thirty years ago [11] with many specifically address-
ing mine safety training [12–14], but their scope and appli-
cation was limited. Since then, new applications have been
developed as summarized in a recent review and include
incident reconstruction simulations, hazard awareness
training, and equipment training [15]. These applications
have ranged from non-immersive desktop programs [16,
17] to head mounted displays (HMDs) and treadmill set-
ups [18], full-scale equipment simulators [19], and large
theater implementations [20]. However, these applications
still have limited content that may be less engaging and
impactful once the trainees have already done it.
Beyond limited content, other barriers and challenges
to the successful implementation of VR systems into mine
safety training programs exist, including costs, portability,
user acceptance, program integration, and limited indus-
try collaboration [21–28]. While VR equipment costs have
come down significantly in recent years, hardware costs can
still be prohibitive. Furthermore, the development costs for
the training content can outweigh the hardware investment
[29]. This can be problematic because sustained learning
and engagement relies on fresh content. Travel resources also
play a role, especially for permanent installations [25]. The
design of the system is another critical factor. User accep-
tance, based on system access, ease-of-use, comfort, and
perceived benefit is crucial for successful implementation
[30]. Lastly, previous research also suggests that dedicated
staff with some specialized training may be required to set
up, maintain, and operate these systems [31]. To prevent
inefficiencies and failures, further research on VR imple-
mentation is essential.
Implementation Science
Implementation science (IS) is an expanding field that
focuses on translating research findings into practical
actions within community settings. IS research is defined
as “the systematic investigation of the use of strategies to
enhance adoption, integration, and sustainment of evi-
dence-based health interventions in clinical and commu-
nity settings to improve individual and population health”
[32]. IS methodology asks researchers to consider how their
findings could be used throughout the project cycle. The
purpose of incorporating IS strategies into the development
and dissemination of innovations is to clear and shorten
the “pipeline” from research to practice. As summarized
in Guerin et al., IS methods have been shown to be effec-
tive in hastening this translation in several disciplines, but
critical gaps persist in the field of occupational safety and
health (OSH) [32]. Furthermore, while IS frameworks
have helped to facilitate and evaluate the translation of
research into practice for several decades, such frameworks
have been predominantly utilized for the post-hoc evalua-
tion of implementation efforts [33]. Instead, Glasgow et al.
advocate for the rapid and repeated use of IS strategies to
inform iterative adjustments to the intervention and bet-
ter facilitate the translation of research into practice [33].
This approach was successfully used in a rapid pre-imple-
mentation evaluation to identify key design factors and
implementation strategies for a family engagement naviga-
tor program during COVID-19 [34]. Skivington et al. also
highlight that engaging stakeholders and identifying uncer-
tainties early can improve the feasibility and acceptability of
an intervention [35]. They argue that early and continuous
engagement enables iterative adaptations and refinements,
ensuring the intervention better fits its intended context.
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research
The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research
(CFIR) is a comprehensive IS framework designed to
help identify factors that influence implementation suc-
cess. CFIR was first introduced in 2009 [36] and has been
used in a wide range of studies [37] and continues to be
updated and used today [34, 38]. The CFIR 2.0 is made
up of five domains—Innovation, Outer Setting, Inner
Setting, Individuals, and Implementation Process—that
each include a variety of constructs. Table 1 describes