Effectiveness of combined virtual and clinical simulation compared with other active teaching strategies on health students' learning: a systematic review protocol.

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JBI evidence synthesis Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.11124/JBIES-23-00348
Andrea López-Navarrete, Melissa Zimmermann-Vildoso, Vanessa de Brito Poveda, Lilia de Souza Nogueira
{"title":"Effectiveness of combined virtual and clinical simulation compared with other active teaching strategies on health students' learning: a systematic review protocol.","authors":"Andrea López-Navarrete, Melissa Zimmermann-Vildoso, Vanessa de Brito Poveda, Lilia de Souza Nogueira","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review is to synthesize the available evidence on the effectiveness of combined virtual and clinical simulation compared with other active teaching strategies on health students' learning.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Current evidence indicates that both virtual simulation and clinical simulation are effective in assisting students to acquire clinical skills. However, there is a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of the combined use of both teaching strategies, which could enhance health students' learning.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review will consider experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies that address the combined use of virtual simulation with clinical simulation compared with other active teaching strategies in learning, clinical reasoning, clinical decision-making, and/or clinical competencies of health students. Combining different hybrid simulators to form a new one will not be considered for inclusion in the review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The databases to be searched will include Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, LILACS (VHL), Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, ERIC, and gray literature sources. Two independent reviewers will perform the study selection, critical appraisal, and data extraction using JBI tools. A narrative synthesis will be performed and, if possible, meta-analysis and risk assessment of publication bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach will be used to assess the certainty of the findings.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023422410.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"1170-1176"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI evidence synthesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00348","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this review is to synthesize the available evidence on the effectiveness of combined virtual and clinical simulation compared with other active teaching strategies on health students' learning.

Introduction: Current evidence indicates that both virtual simulation and clinical simulation are effective in assisting students to acquire clinical skills. However, there is a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of the combined use of both teaching strategies, which could enhance health students' learning.

Inclusion criteria: This review will consider experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies that address the combined use of virtual simulation with clinical simulation compared with other active teaching strategies in learning, clinical reasoning, clinical decision-making, and/or clinical competencies of health students. Combining different hybrid simulators to form a new one will not be considered for inclusion in the review.

Methods: The databases to be searched will include Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, LILACS (VHL), Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, ERIC, and gray literature sources. Two independent reviewers will perform the study selection, critical appraisal, and data extraction using JBI tools. A narrative synthesis will be performed and, if possible, meta-analysis and risk assessment of publication bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach will be used to assess the certainty of the findings.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023422410.

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
虚拟和临床模拟相结合的教学策略与其他主动教学策略对医学生学习的效果比较:系统性综述方案。
目的本综述旨在综合现有证据,说明虚拟和临床模拟相结合的教学策略与其他主动教学策略相比,对医学生学习的有效性:目前的证据表明,虚拟模拟和临床模拟都能有效地帮助学生掌握临床技能。然而,在综合使用这两种教学策略的有效性方面还存在知识空白,而综合使用这两种教学策略可以提高医学生的学习效果:本综述将考虑实验性、准实验性和观察性研究,这些研究涉及虚拟仿真与临床仿真的结合使用与其他主动教学策略在医学生学习、临床推理、临床决策和/或临床能力方面的比较。将不同的混合模拟器组合成一个新的模拟器将不被考虑纳入综述:将检索的数据库包括 Cochrane Library、MEDLINE (PubMed)、CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、Scopus、LILACS (VHL)、Web of Science Core Collection、Embase (Elsevier)、ERIC 和灰色文献来源。两名独立审稿人将使用 JBI 工具进行研究选择、批判性评估和数据提取。将进行叙述性综述,如有可能,还将进行荟萃分析和出版偏倚风险评估。将采用建议、评估、发展和评价分级法(GRADE)来评估研究结果的确定性:综述注册:prospero crd42023422410。
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
JBI evidence synthesis
JBI evidence synthesis Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
218
期刊最新文献
Value-based outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists in primary care: a scoping review. Parents' and guardians' experiences of barriers and facilitators in accessing autism spectrum disorder diagnostic services for their children: a qualitative systematic review. Evidence on the accreditation of health professionals' education in the WHO Africa region: a scoping review protocol. Barriers and facilitators to designing, maintaining, and utilizing rare disease patient registries: a scoping review protocol. Supporting professional practice transition in undergraduate nursing education: a scoping review protocol.
×
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