59% of adults have been reported to have inadequate health literacy, suggesting a gap in the public understanding of healthcare. Stroke poses a concern in health literacy as it constitutes 6.8% of the total burden of disease, yet remains preventable in many cases. As stroke affects many Australians, it is beneficial to investigate effective ways to provide accessible and understandable information regarding its anatomy and physiology. Modern technologies can assist, such as augmented reality (AR) which allows people to interact with virtual renders of anatomical models, showing great promise in improving the user’s understanding of health (1, 2). In addition, the introduction of novel and technology-enhanced learning tools can assist students studying health to better understand concepts covered throughout their course (3, 4). The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of AR in contrast with a pamphlet as an educational tool by assessing learning acquired from each, as well as participant perceptions of the two different delivery modes. 59 participants were randomised into two groups, one used AR (n=32, Figure 1) and the latter used a printed pamphlet (n=27) to learn identical content relating to stroke. Participants answered a pre-test multiple choice questionnaire to evaluate knowledge prior to the intervention. A Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine participant perceptions post-learning intervention, followed by another multiple-choice post-test. A Mann-Whitney U test analysed the significance between pre- and post-test scores. A D’Agostino and Pearson Normality Test found that the Likert-scale data was normally distributed, allowing for a Student’s two-tailed unpaired t-Test to assess variations in the AR and pamphlet interventions. Pre- and post-test scores suggested that participants learned in both interventions (p<0.001), despite no significance between the interventions themselves. Participants reported better learning experiences when using AR (p<0.001), perceiving that AR allowed them to better understand anatomy (p<0.005) and that AR was a better learning tool (p<0.001). Participants also felt AR would help their non-student friends or family to better understand stroke compared the pamphlet intervention (p<0.001).  Participants preferred AR over pamphlets as a learning tool, with both modes being equally effective for participant learning and stroke education.