Rachel Elkin, Jonathan P Duff, Marian L LaForest, Stephanie Stapleton, Geethanjali Ramachandra, Janice C Palaganas, Isabel T Gross
{"title":"Distance simulation in the health professions: a scoping review.","authors":"Rachel Elkin, Jonathan P Duff, Marian L LaForest, Stephanie Stapleton, Geethanjali Ramachandra, Janice C Palaganas, Isabel T Gross","doi":"10.1186/s41077-023-00266-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Distance simulation is defined as simulation experiences in which participants and/or facilitators are separated from each other by geographic distance and/or time. The use of distance simulation as an education technique expanded rapidly with the recent COVID-19 pandemic, with a concomitant increase in scholarly work.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was performed to review and characterize the distance simulation literature. With the assistance of an informationist, the literature was systematically searched. Each abstract was reviewed by two researchers and disagreements were addressed by consensus. Risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six thousand nine hundred sixty-nine abstracts were screened, ultimately leading to 124 papers in the final dataset for extraction. A variety of simulation modalities, contexts, and distance simulation technologies were identified, with activities covering a range of content areas. Only 72 papers presented outcomes and sufficient detail to be analyzed for risk of bias. Most studies had moderate to high risk of bias, most commonly related to confounding factors, intervention classification, or measurement of outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most of the papers reviewed during the more than 20-year time period captured in this study presented early work or low-level outcomes. More standardization around reporting is needed to facilitate a clear and shared understanding of future distance simulation research. As the broader simulation community gains more experience with distance simulation, more studies are needed to inform when and how it should be used.</p>","PeriodicalId":72108,"journal":{"name":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","volume":"8 1","pages":"27"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10656877/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-023-00266-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Distance simulation is defined as simulation experiences in which participants and/or facilitators are separated from each other by geographic distance and/or time. The use of distance simulation as an education technique expanded rapidly with the recent COVID-19 pandemic, with a concomitant increase in scholarly work.
Methods: A scoping review was performed to review and characterize the distance simulation literature. With the assistance of an informationist, the literature was systematically searched. Each abstract was reviewed by two researchers and disagreements were addressed by consensus. Risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools.
Results: Six thousand nine hundred sixty-nine abstracts were screened, ultimately leading to 124 papers in the final dataset for extraction. A variety of simulation modalities, contexts, and distance simulation technologies were identified, with activities covering a range of content areas. Only 72 papers presented outcomes and sufficient detail to be analyzed for risk of bias. Most studies had moderate to high risk of bias, most commonly related to confounding factors, intervention classification, or measurement of outcomes.
Conclusions: Most of the papers reviewed during the more than 20-year time period captured in this study presented early work or low-level outcomes. More standardization around reporting is needed to facilitate a clear and shared understanding of future distance simulation research. As the broader simulation community gains more experience with distance simulation, more studies are needed to inform when and how it should be used.