A serious video game—EmergenCSim™—for novice anesthesia trainees to learn how to perform general anesthesia for emergency cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial

Allison J. Lee, Stephanie Goodman, Beatriz Corradini, Sophie Cohn, Madhabi Chatterji, Ruth Landau
{"title":"A serious video game—EmergenCSim™—for novice anesthesia trainees to learn how to perform general anesthesia for emergency cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial","authors":"Allison J. Lee,&nbsp;Stephanie Goodman,&nbsp;Beatriz Corradini,&nbsp;Sophie Cohn,&nbsp;Madhabi Chatterji,&nbsp;Ruth Landau","doi":"10.1007/s44254-023-00016-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>We developed EmergenCSim™, a serious game (SG) with an embedded assessment, to teach and assess performing general anesthesia for cesarean delivery. We hypothesized that first-year anesthesiology trainees (CA-1) playing EmergenCSim™ would yield superior knowledge scores versus controls, and EmergenCSim™ and high-fidelity simulation (HFS) assessments would correlate.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a single-blinded, longitudinal randomized experiment. Following a lecture (week 3), trainees took a multiple-choice question (MCQ) test (week 4) and were randomized to play EmergenCSim™ (<i>N</i> = 26) or a non-content specific SG (<i>N</i> = 23). Participants repeated the MCQ test (week 8). Between month 3 and 12, all repeated the MCQ test, played EmergenCSim™ and participated in HFS of an identical scenario. HFS performance was rated using a behavior checklist.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>There was no significant change in mean MCQ scores over time between groups F (2, 94) = 0.870, <i>p</i> = 0.42, and no main effect on MCQ scores, F (1, 47) = 1.110, <i>p</i> = 0.20. There was significant three-way interaction between time, gender and group, F (2, 90) = 3.042, <i>p</i> = 0.053, and significant two-way interaction between gender and time on MCQ scores, F (2, 94) = 107.77, <i>p</i> = 0.036; outcomes improved over time among males. There was no group difference in HFS checklist and SG scores. Both instruments demonstrated good internal consistency reliability but non-significant score correlation.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Playing EmergenCSim™ once did not improve MCQ scores; nonetheless scores slightly improved among males over time, suggesting gender may impact learning outcomes with SGs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100082,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology and Perioperative Science","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44254-023-00016-4.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology and Perioperative Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44254-023-00016-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

We developed EmergenCSim™, a serious game (SG) with an embedded assessment, to teach and assess performing general anesthesia for cesarean delivery. We hypothesized that first-year anesthesiology trainees (CA-1) playing EmergenCSim™ would yield superior knowledge scores versus controls, and EmergenCSim™ and high-fidelity simulation (HFS) assessments would correlate.

Methods

This was a single-blinded, longitudinal randomized experiment. Following a lecture (week 3), trainees took a multiple-choice question (MCQ) test (week 4) and were randomized to play EmergenCSim™ (N = 26) or a non-content specific SG (N = 23). Participants repeated the MCQ test (week 8). Between month 3 and 12, all repeated the MCQ test, played EmergenCSim™ and participated in HFS of an identical scenario. HFS performance was rated using a behavior checklist.

Results

There was no significant change in mean MCQ scores over time between groups F (2, 94) = 0.870, p = 0.42, and no main effect on MCQ scores, F (1, 47) = 1.110, p = 0.20. There was significant three-way interaction between time, gender and group, F (2, 90) = 3.042, p = 0.053, and significant two-way interaction between gender and time on MCQ scores, F (2, 94) = 107.77, p = 0.036; outcomes improved over time among males. There was no group difference in HFS checklist and SG scores. Both instruments demonstrated good internal consistency reliability but non-significant score correlation.

Conclusions

Playing EmergenCSim™ once did not improve MCQ scores; nonetheless scores slightly improved among males over time, suggesting gender may impact learning outcomes with SGs.

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
用于麻醉新手学员学习如何为紧急剖宫产实施全身麻醉的严肃视频游戏--EmergenCSim™:随机对照试验
目的我们开发了一款内嵌评估功能的严肃游戏(SG)--EmergenCSim™,用于教授和评估剖宫产全身麻醉。我们假设,与对照组相比,一年级麻醉学受训者(CA-1)玩 EmergenCSim™ 会获得更高的知识分数,而且 EmergenCSim™ 和高保真模拟 (HFS) 评估会相互关联。讲座结束后(第 3 周),受训者参加多项选择题(MCQ)测试(第 4 周),然后被随机分配到 EmergenCSim™(26 人)或非内容特定的 SG(23 人)游戏中。参与者重复进行 MCQ 测试(第 8 周)。第 3 个月至第 12 个月期间,所有参与者都重复了 MCQ 测试,玩了 EmergenCSim™,并参加了相同情景的 HFS。结果各组之间的 MCQ 平均得分随时间变化不大,F(2,94)= 0.870,p=0.42;MCQ 分数无主效应,F(1,47)= 1.110,p=0.20。在 MCQ 分数上,时间、性别和组别之间存在明显的三方交互作用,F (2, 90) = 3.042,p = 0.053;在 MCQ 分数上,性别和时间之间存在明显的双向交互作用,F (2, 94) = 107.77,p = 0.036;随着时间的推移,男性的结果有所改善。HFS核对表和SG得分没有组间差异。结论玩一次 EmergenCSim™ 并未提高 MCQ 分数;不过,随着时间的推移,男性的分数略有提高,这表明性别可能会影响 SG 的学习效果。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
COMET: monitoring mitochondrial shock in anesthesiology and intensive care medicine Efficacy of fosaprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study Increased use of dexmedetomidine and opioids in preterm infants—an opinion based on Curtis’s multicenter observational cohort study Advances in the use of dexmedetomidine for postoperative cognitive dysfunction Choledochectomy following transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic valve stenosis
×
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