Technology-Enhanced Simulation for Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
CONTEXT Although technology-enhanced simulation has widespread appeal, its effectiveness remains uncertain. A comprehensive synthesis of evidence may inform the use of simulation in health professions education. OBJECTIVE To summarize the outcomes of technology-enhanced simulation training for healt...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 2011-09, Vol.306 (9), p.978-988 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 988 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 978 |
container_title | JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association |
container_volume | 306 |
creator | Cook, David A Hatala, Rose Brydges, Ryan Zendejas, Benjamin Szostek, Jason H Wang, Amy T Erwin, Patricia J Hamstra, Stanley J |
description | CONTEXT Although technology-enhanced simulation has widespread appeal, its effectiveness remains uncertain. A comprehensive synthesis of evidence may inform the use of simulation in health professions education. OBJECTIVE To summarize the outcomes of technology-enhanced simulation training for health professions learners in comparison with no intervention. DATA SOURCE Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011. STUDY SELECTION Original research in any language evaluating simulation compared with no intervention for training practicing and student physicians, nurses, dentists, and other health care professionals. DATA EXTRACTION Reviewers working in duplicate evaluated quality and abstracted information on learners, instructional design (curricular integration, distributing training over multiple days, feedback, mastery learning, and repetitive practice), and outcomes. We coded skills (performance in a test setting) separately for time, process, and product measures, and similarly classified patient care behaviors. DATA SYNTHESIS From a pool of 10 903 articles, we identified 609 eligible studies enrolling 35 226 trainees. Of these, 137 were randomized studies, 67 were nonrandomized studies with 2 or more groups, and 405 used a single-group pretest-posttest design. We pooled effect sizes using random effects. Heterogeneity was large (I2>50%) in all main analyses. In comparison with no intervention, pooled effect sizes were 1.20 (95% CI, 1.04-1.35) for knowledge outcomes (n = 118 studies), 1.14 (95% CI, 1.03-1.25) for time skills (n = 210), 1.09 (95% CI, 1.03-1.16) for process skills (n = 426), 1.18 (95% CI, 0.98-1.37) for product skills (n = 54), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.47-1.10) for time behaviors (n = 20), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66-0.96) for other behaviors (n = 50), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.34-0.66) for direct effects on patients (n = 32). Subgroup analyses revealed no consistent statistically significant interactions between simulation training and instructional design features or study quality. CONCLUSION In comparison with no intervention, technology-enhanced simulation training in health professions education is consistently associated with large effects for outcomes of knowledge, skills, and behaviors and moderate effects for patient-related outcomes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1001/jama.2011.1234 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_888340940</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ama_id>1104300</ama_id><sourcerecordid>2465365941</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a325t-2b30994c992cfff4a21ffddf80d475b2df41e0bf7259780d9a2ae7a587b9ee473</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0E1v1DAQBmALgei2cOXAAVlIiFOW8Ucam1tVbSlSEYiWczRxxmxWSVzsBLT_HoddioQvtkePZ6yXsRcC1gJAvNvhgGsJQqyFVPoRW4lSmUKV1jxmKwBrikobfcJOU9pBXkJVT9mJFHY5mhXzd-S2Y-jD932xGbc4Omr5bTfMPU5dGLkPkV8T9tOWf4nBU0q5mvimnd0f8J5f8Nt9mmjIV8e_0s-OfnEcW_6JJixwxH6fuvSMPfHYJ3p-3M_Yt6vN3eV1cfP5w8fLi5sClSynQjYKrNXOWum89xql8L5tvYFWV2UjW68FQeMrWdoqFy1KpApLUzWWSFfqjL099L2P4cdMaaqHLjnqexwpzKk2xigNVkOWr_-TuzDH_N2MrNLCynOd0fqAXAwpRfL1fewGjPtaQL3kXy_510v-9ZJ_fvDq2HVuBmof-N_AM3hzBJgc9j7mxLv0z-kS9Llc3MuDW_o_DBWgFYD6DSNGlrg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>893419264</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Technology-Enhanced Simulation for Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>American Medical Association Journals</source><creator>Cook, David A ; Hatala, Rose ; Brydges, Ryan ; Zendejas, Benjamin ; Szostek, Jason H ; Wang, Amy T ; Erwin, Patricia J ; Hamstra, Stanley J</creator><creatorcontrib>Cook, David A ; Hatala, Rose ; Brydges, Ryan ; Zendejas, Benjamin ; Szostek, Jason H ; Wang, Amy T ; Erwin, Patricia J ; Hamstra, Stanley J</creatorcontrib><description>CONTEXT Although technology-enhanced simulation has widespread appeal, its effectiveness remains uncertain. A comprehensive synthesis of evidence may inform the use of simulation in health professions education. OBJECTIVE To summarize the outcomes of technology-enhanced simulation training for health professions learners in comparison with no intervention. DATA SOURCE Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011. STUDY SELECTION Original research in any language evaluating simulation compared with no intervention for training practicing and student physicians, nurses, dentists, and other health care professionals. DATA EXTRACTION Reviewers working in duplicate evaluated quality and abstracted information on learners, instructional design (curricular integration, distributing training over multiple days, feedback, mastery learning, and repetitive practice), and outcomes. We coded skills (performance in a test setting) separately for time, process, and product measures, and similarly classified patient care behaviors. DATA SYNTHESIS From a pool of 10 903 articles, we identified 609 eligible studies enrolling 35 226 trainees. Of these, 137 were randomized studies, 67 were nonrandomized studies with 2 or more groups, and 405 used a single-group pretest-posttest design. We pooled effect sizes using random effects. Heterogeneity was large (I2>50%) in all main analyses. In comparison with no intervention, pooled effect sizes were 1.20 (95% CI, 1.04-1.35) for knowledge outcomes (n = 118 studies), 1.14 (95% CI, 1.03-1.25) for time skills (n = 210), 1.09 (95% CI, 1.03-1.16) for process skills (n = 426), 1.18 (95% CI, 0.98-1.37) for product skills (n = 54), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.47-1.10) for time behaviors (n = 20), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66-0.96) for other behaviors (n = 50), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.34-0.66) for direct effects on patients (n = 32). Subgroup analyses revealed no consistent statistically significant interactions between simulation training and instructional design features or study quality. CONCLUSION In comparison with no intervention, technology-enhanced simulation training in health professions education is consistently associated with large effects for outcomes of knowledge, skills, and behaviors and moderate effects for patient-related outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0098-7484</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-3598</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.1234</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21900138</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JAMAAP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago, IL: American Medical Association</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Computer Simulation ; Computer-Assisted Instruction ; Education, Medical - methods ; Education, Professional - methods ; General aspects ; Health education ; Health Personnel - education ; Humans ; Medical personnel ; Medical sciences ; Medical technology ; Prevention and actions ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Simulation ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 2011-09, Vol.306 (9), p.978-988</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright American Medical Association Sep 7, 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/10.1001/jama.2011.1234$$EPDF$$P50$$Gama$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/10.1001/jama.2011.1234$$EHTML$$P50$$Gama$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>64,314,780,784,3340,27924,27925,76489,76492</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=24504628$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21900138$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cook, David A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hatala, Rose</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brydges, Ryan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zendejas, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szostek, Jason H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Amy T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erwin, Patricia J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamstra, Stanley J</creatorcontrib><title>Technology-Enhanced Simulation for Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis</title><title>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</title><addtitle>JAMA</addtitle><description>CONTEXT Although technology-enhanced simulation has widespread appeal, its effectiveness remains uncertain. A comprehensive synthesis of evidence may inform the use of simulation in health professions education. OBJECTIVE To summarize the outcomes of technology-enhanced simulation training for health professions learners in comparison with no intervention. DATA SOURCE Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011. STUDY SELECTION Original research in any language evaluating simulation compared with no intervention for training practicing and student physicians, nurses, dentists, and other health care professionals. DATA EXTRACTION Reviewers working in duplicate evaluated quality and abstracted information on learners, instructional design (curricular integration, distributing training over multiple days, feedback, mastery learning, and repetitive practice), and outcomes. We coded skills (performance in a test setting) separately for time, process, and product measures, and similarly classified patient care behaviors. DATA SYNTHESIS From a pool of 10 903 articles, we identified 609 eligible studies enrolling 35 226 trainees. Of these, 137 were randomized studies, 67 were nonrandomized studies with 2 or more groups, and 405 used a single-group pretest-posttest design. We pooled effect sizes using random effects. Heterogeneity was large (I2>50%) in all main analyses. In comparison with no intervention, pooled effect sizes were 1.20 (95% CI, 1.04-1.35) for knowledge outcomes (n = 118 studies), 1.14 (95% CI, 1.03-1.25) for time skills (n = 210), 1.09 (95% CI, 1.03-1.16) for process skills (n = 426), 1.18 (95% CI, 0.98-1.37) for product skills (n = 54), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.47-1.10) for time behaviors (n = 20), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66-0.96) for other behaviors (n = 50), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.34-0.66) for direct effects on patients (n = 32). Subgroup analyses revealed no consistent statistically significant interactions between simulation training and instructional design features or study quality. CONCLUSION In comparison with no intervention, technology-enhanced simulation training in health professions education is consistently associated with large effects for outcomes of knowledge, skills, and behaviors and moderate effects for patient-related outcomes.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>Computer-Assisted Instruction</subject><subject>Education, Medical - methods</subject><subject>Education, Professional - methods</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Health education</subject><subject>Health Personnel - education</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medical technology</subject><subject>Prevention and actions</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0098-7484</issn><issn>1538-3598</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpd0E1v1DAQBmALgei2cOXAAVlIiFOW8Ucam1tVbSlSEYiWczRxxmxWSVzsBLT_HoddioQvtkePZ6yXsRcC1gJAvNvhgGsJQqyFVPoRW4lSmUKV1jxmKwBrikobfcJOU9pBXkJVT9mJFHY5mhXzd-S2Y-jD932xGbc4Omr5bTfMPU5dGLkPkV8T9tOWf4nBU0q5mvimnd0f8J5f8Nt9mmjIV8e_0s-OfnEcW_6JJixwxH6fuvSMPfHYJ3p-3M_Yt6vN3eV1cfP5w8fLi5sClSynQjYKrNXOWum89xql8L5tvYFWV2UjW68FQeMrWdoqFy1KpApLUzWWSFfqjL099L2P4cdMaaqHLjnqexwpzKk2xigNVkOWr_-TuzDH_N2MrNLCynOd0fqAXAwpRfL1fewGjPtaQL3kXy_510v-9ZJ_fvDq2HVuBmof-N_AM3hzBJgc9j7mxLv0z-kS9Llc3MuDW_o_DBWgFYD6DSNGlrg</recordid><startdate>20110907</startdate><enddate>20110907</enddate><creator>Cook, David A</creator><creator>Hatala, Rose</creator><creator>Brydges, Ryan</creator><creator>Zendejas, Benjamin</creator><creator>Szostek, Jason H</creator><creator>Wang, Amy T</creator><creator>Erwin, Patricia J</creator><creator>Hamstra, Stanley J</creator><general>American Medical Association</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110907</creationdate><title>Technology-Enhanced Simulation for Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis</title><author>Cook, David A ; Hatala, Rose ; Brydges, Ryan ; Zendejas, Benjamin ; Szostek, Jason H ; Wang, Amy T ; Erwin, Patricia J ; Hamstra, Stanley J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a325t-2b30994c992cfff4a21ffddf80d475b2df41e0bf7259780d9a2ae7a587b9ee473</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>Computer-Assisted Instruction</topic><topic>Education, Medical - methods</topic><topic>Education, Professional - methods</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Health education</topic><topic>Health Personnel - education</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medical technology</topic><topic>Prevention and actions</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cook, David A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hatala, Rose</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brydges, Ryan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zendejas, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szostek, Jason H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Amy T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erwin, Patricia J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamstra, Stanley J</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cook, David A</au><au>Hatala, Rose</au><au>Brydges, Ryan</au><au>Zendejas, Benjamin</au><au>Szostek, Jason H</au><au>Wang, Amy T</au><au>Erwin, Patricia J</au><au>Hamstra, Stanley J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Technology-Enhanced Simulation for Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</jtitle><addtitle>JAMA</addtitle><date>2011-09-07</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>306</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>978</spage><epage>988</epage><pages>978-988</pages><issn>0098-7484</issn><eissn>1538-3598</eissn><coden>JAMAAP</coden><abstract>CONTEXT Although technology-enhanced simulation has widespread appeal, its effectiveness remains uncertain. A comprehensive synthesis of evidence may inform the use of simulation in health professions education. OBJECTIVE To summarize the outcomes of technology-enhanced simulation training for health professions learners in comparison with no intervention. DATA SOURCE Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011. STUDY SELECTION Original research in any language evaluating simulation compared with no intervention for training practicing and student physicians, nurses, dentists, and other health care professionals. DATA EXTRACTION Reviewers working in duplicate evaluated quality and abstracted information on learners, instructional design (curricular integration, distributing training over multiple days, feedback, mastery learning, and repetitive practice), and outcomes. We coded skills (performance in a test setting) separately for time, process, and product measures, and similarly classified patient care behaviors. DATA SYNTHESIS From a pool of 10 903 articles, we identified 609 eligible studies enrolling 35 226 trainees. Of these, 137 were randomized studies, 67 were nonrandomized studies with 2 or more groups, and 405 used a single-group pretest-posttest design. We pooled effect sizes using random effects. Heterogeneity was large (I2>50%) in all main analyses. In comparison with no intervention, pooled effect sizes were 1.20 (95% CI, 1.04-1.35) for knowledge outcomes (n = 118 studies), 1.14 (95% CI, 1.03-1.25) for time skills (n = 210), 1.09 (95% CI, 1.03-1.16) for process skills (n = 426), 1.18 (95% CI, 0.98-1.37) for product skills (n = 54), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.47-1.10) for time behaviors (n = 20), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66-0.96) for other behaviors (n = 50), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.34-0.66) for direct effects on patients (n = 32). Subgroup analyses revealed no consistent statistically significant interactions between simulation training and instructional design features or study quality. CONCLUSION In comparison with no intervention, technology-enhanced simulation training in health professions education is consistently associated with large effects for outcomes of knowledge, skills, and behaviors and moderate effects for patient-related outcomes.</abstract><cop>Chicago, IL</cop><pub>American Medical Association</pub><pmid>21900138</pmid><doi>10.1001/jama.2011.1234</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0098-7484 |
ispartof | JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 2011-09, Vol.306 (9), p.978-988 |
issn | 0098-7484 1538-3598 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_888340940 |
source | MEDLINE; American Medical Association Journals |
subjects | Biological and medical sciences Computer Simulation Computer-Assisted Instruction Education, Medical - methods Education, Professional - methods General aspects Health education Health Personnel - education Humans Medical personnel Medical sciences Medical technology Prevention and actions Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Simulation Systematic review |
title | Technology-Enhanced Simulation for Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T19%3A21%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Technology-Enhanced%20Simulation%20for%20Health%20Professions%20Education:%20A%20Systematic%20Review%20and%20Meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=JAMA%20:%20the%20journal%20of%20the%20American%20Medical%20Association&rft.au=Cook,%20David%20A&rft.date=2011-09-07&rft.volume=306&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=978&rft.epage=988&rft.pages=978-988&rft.issn=0098-7484&rft.eissn=1538-3598&rft.coden=JAMAAP&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001/jama.2011.1234&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2465365941%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=893419264&rft_id=info:pmid/21900138&rft_ama_id=1104300&rfr_iscdi=true |