Distance simulation in the health professions: a scoping review.

IF 2.8 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Advances in simulation (London, England) Pub Date : 2023-11-17 DOI:10.1186/s41077-023-00266-z
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
卫生专业中的远程模拟:范围审查。
背景:距离模拟被定义为参与者和/或促进者因地理距离和/或时间而彼此分离的模拟体验。随着最近的COVID-19大流行,远程模拟作为一种教育技术的使用迅速扩大,随之而来的是学术工作的增加。方法:对距离模拟文献进行范围回顾和表征。在一位信息学家的协助下,文献被系统地检索了。每个摘要都由两名研究人员审查,分歧以共识解决。纳入研究的偏倚风险使用风险偏倚2 (RoB 2)和非随机干预研究的偏倚风险(ROBINS-I)工具进行评估。结果:筛选了六千九百六十九篇摘要,最终在最终数据集中提取了124篇论文。确定了各种模拟模式、环境和远程模拟技术,活动涵盖了一系列内容领域。只有72篇论文提供了结果和足够的细节来分析偏倚风险。大多数研究有中高偏倚风险,最常见的是与混杂因素、干预分类或结果测量有关。结论:在本研究中回顾的20多年的论文中,大多数都是早期的工作或低水平的结果。报告需要更加标准化,以促进对未来远程模拟研究的清晰和共同理解。随着更广泛的仿真社区在远程仿真方面获得更多的经验,需要更多的研究来告知何时以及如何使用它。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Massive open online course: a new strategy for faculty development needs in healthcare simulation. Changing the conversation: impact of guidelines designed to optimize interprofessional facilitation of simulation-based team training. Speech recognition technology for assessing team debriefing communication and interaction patterns: An algorithmic toolkit for healthcare simulation educators. Effectiveness of hybrid simulation training on medical student performance in whole-task consultation of cardiac patients: The ASSIMILATE EXCELLENCE randomized waitlist-controlled trial. Using simulation scenarios and a debriefing structure to promote feedback skills among interprofessional team members in clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1