Examining lecturers’ questions and level of reflection during post-simulation debriefing in Malawi: A qualitative study

{"title":"Examining lecturers’ questions and level of reflection during post-simulation debriefing in Malawi: A qualitative study","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ijans.2024.100771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Simulation-based education has recently been promoted among midwifery students in Malawi. Reflective debriefing is essential for a successful educative simulation. It is therefore crucial to explore debriefing practice, particularly when simulation-based education is novel. Therefore, the study aimed to explore practice of debriefing with focus on level of reflection in questions posed by lecturers and responses from midwifery students when learning postpartum haemorrhage.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The study applied qualitative exploratory design. During debriefing of a simulation session on postpartum hemorrhage management, data were collected through audio recordings. Seven midwifery lecturers and 107 midwifery students from midwifery education program in Malawi participated in the study. Using Gibbs’s reflective cycle, data from the lecturers’ questions and midwifery students’ responses were analysed by rating stages of reflection. The reporting of the results follows Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Most of lecturers’ questions and midwifery students’ responses were evaluative, 46% and 47%, respectively. The fewest questions and responses were conclusive, 4% and 2% respectively. Only 12% of the lecturers’ questions were analytic, while 16% of students’ responses were rated as analytic.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The results revealed that debriefing provides a forum for students to reflect on their simulated experience. Though, more evaluative questions and responses were elicited from lecturers and students, respectively, than the rest of the stages in Gibbs’s reflective cycle. If debriefing in simulation-based education is going to pave the way for student reflection in Malawi, it is necessary to enhance debriefing practices through further training.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38091,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214139124001173/pdfft?md5=8ecab596c1c685e1d74a769f51cfb601&pid=1-s2.0-S2214139124001173-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214139124001173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Simulation-based education has recently been promoted among midwifery students in Malawi. Reflective debriefing is essential for a successful educative simulation. It is therefore crucial to explore debriefing practice, particularly when simulation-based education is novel. Therefore, the study aimed to explore practice of debriefing with focus on level of reflection in questions posed by lecturers and responses from midwifery students when learning postpartum haemorrhage.

Methods

The study applied qualitative exploratory design. During debriefing of a simulation session on postpartum hemorrhage management, data were collected through audio recordings. Seven midwifery lecturers and 107 midwifery students from midwifery education program in Malawi participated in the study. Using Gibbs’s reflective cycle, data from the lecturers’ questions and midwifery students’ responses were analysed by rating stages of reflection. The reporting of the results follows Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.

Results

Most of lecturers’ questions and midwifery students’ responses were evaluative, 46% and 47%, respectively. The fewest questions and responses were conclusive, 4% and 2% respectively. Only 12% of the lecturers’ questions were analytic, while 16% of students’ responses were rated as analytic.

Conclusion

The results revealed that debriefing provides a forum for students to reflect on their simulated experience. Though, more evaluative questions and responses were elicited from lecturers and students, respectively, than the rest of the stages in Gibbs’s reflective cycle. If debriefing in simulation-based education is going to pave the way for student reflection in Malawi, it is necessary to enhance debriefing practices through further training.

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
研究马拉维讲师在模拟后汇报中的问题和反思水平:定性研究
背景模拟教育最近在马拉维的助产士学生中得到推广。反思性汇报对于成功的模拟教育至关重要。因此,探索汇报实践至关重要,尤其是在新的模拟教育中。因此,本研究旨在探索汇报实践,重点是助产士学生在学习产后大出血时对讲师提出的问题和助产士学生的回答进行反思的程度。在产后出血处理模拟课程的汇报过程中,通过录音收集数据。马拉维助产士教育项目的 7 名助产士讲师和 107 名助产士学生参与了研究。采用吉布斯的反思周期,对讲师的提问和助产士学生的回答进行了数据分析,并对反思阶段进行了评级。结果大部分讲师的问题和助产士学生的回答都是评价性的,分别占 46%和 47%。最少的问题和回答是结论性的,分别为 4% 和 2%。只有 12% 的讲师问题是分析性的,而 16% 的学生回答被评为分析性的。不过,与吉布斯反思周期的其他阶段相比,讲师和学生分别提出了更多的评价性问题和回答。如果模拟教学中的汇报要为马拉维学生的反思铺平道路,就必须通过进一步的培训来加强汇报实践。
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
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences (IJANS) is an international scientific journal published by Elsevier. The broad-based journal was founded on two key tenets, i.e. to publish the most exciting research with respect to the subjects of Nursing and Midwifery in Africa, and secondly, to advance the international understanding and development of nursing and midwifery in Africa, both as a profession and as an academic discipline. The fully refereed journal provides a forum for all aspects of nursing and midwifery sciences, especially new trends and advances. The journal call for original research papers, systematic and scholarly review articles, and critical papers which will stimulate debate on research, policy, theory or philosophy of nursing as related to nursing and midwifery in Africa, technical reports, and short communications, and which will meet the journal''s high academic and ethical standards. Manuscripts of nursing practice, education, management, and research are encouraged. The journal values critical scholarly debate on issues that have strategic significance for educators, practitioners, leaders and policy-makers of nursing and midwifery in Africa. The journal publishes the highest quality scholarly contributions reflecting the diversity of nursing, and is also inviting international scholars who are engaged with nursing and midwifery in Africa to contribute to the journal. We will only publish work that demonstrates the use of rigorous methodology as well as by publishing papers that highlight the theoretical underpinnings of nursing and midwifery as it relates to the Africa context.
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to ‘Factors affecting HIV disclosure among partners in Morogoro, Tanzania’ [International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences Volume 10, (2019) 49-54] Tracer study to assess the employability of graduates and quality of a nursing program: A descriptive cross-sectional survey Factors that influence the quality of work life in nursing departments: A management perspective Roles, perceptions, and context of nursing student clinical facilitation in sub-Saharan Africa: An integrative review Birth stories of South African mothers of children with albinism: A critical human rights analysis
×
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