教学设计指南在医疗保健模拟场景中的有限使用:专家评估。

IF 2.8 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Advances in simulation (London, England) Pub Date : 2022-09-24 DOI:10.1186/s41077-022-00228-x
Brena C P de Melo, Ana R Falbo, Edvaldo S Souza, Arno M M Muijtjens, Jeroen J G Van Merriënboer, Cees P M Van der Vleuten
{"title":"教学设计指南在医疗保健模拟场景中的有限使用:专家评估。","authors":"Brena C P de Melo,&nbsp;Ana R Falbo,&nbsp;Edvaldo S Souza,&nbsp;Arno M M Muijtjens,&nbsp;Jeroen J G Van Merriënboer,&nbsp;Cees P M Van der Vleuten","doi":"10.1186/s41077-022-00228-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Systematic reviews on simulation training effectiveness have pointed to the need to adhere to evidence-based instructional design (ID) guidelines. ID guidelines derive from sound cognitive theories and aim to optimize complex learning (integration of knowledge, skills, and attitudes) and learning transfer (application of acquired knowledge and skills in the workplace). The purpose of this study was to explore adherence to ID guidelines in simulation training programs for dealing with postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), a high-risk situation and the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 40 raters analyzed simulation training programs as described in 32 articles. The articles were divided into four subsets of seven articles and one subset of four articles. Each subset was judged by seven to ten raters on adherence to ID guidelines. The 5-point Likert score rating scale was based on Merrill's First Principles of Instruction and included items relating to key ID features categorized into five subscales: authenticity, activation of prior knowledge, demonstration, application, and integration/transfer. The authors searched for articles published in English between January 2007 and March 2017 in PubMed, Eric, and Google Scholar and calculated the mean Likert-scale score, per subscale, and interrater reliability (IRR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean Likert-scale scores calculated for all subscales were < 3.00. For the number of raters used to judge the papers in this study (varying between 7 and 10), the IRR was found to be excellent for the authenticity and integration/transfer subscales, good-to-excellent for the activation of prior knowledge and application subscales, and fair-to-good for the demonstration subscale.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results demonstrate a paucity of the description of adherence to evidence-based ID guidelines in current simulation trainings for a high-risk situation such as PPH.</p>","PeriodicalId":72108,"journal":{"name":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9509554/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The limited use of instructional design guidelines in healthcare simulation scenarios: an expert appraisal.\",\"authors\":\"Brena C P de Melo,&nbsp;Ana R Falbo,&nbsp;Edvaldo S Souza,&nbsp;Arno M M Muijtjens,&nbsp;Jeroen J G Van Merriënboer,&nbsp;Cees P M Van der Vleuten\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41077-022-00228-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Systematic reviews on simulation training effectiveness have pointed to the need to adhere to evidence-based instructional design (ID) guidelines. ID guidelines derive from sound cognitive theories and aim to optimize complex learning (integration of knowledge, skills, and attitudes) and learning transfer (application of acquired knowledge and skills in the workplace). The purpose of this study was to explore adherence to ID guidelines in simulation training programs for dealing with postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), a high-risk situation and the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 40 raters analyzed simulation training programs as described in 32 articles. The articles were divided into four subsets of seven articles and one subset of four articles. Each subset was judged by seven to ten raters on adherence to ID guidelines. The 5-point Likert score rating scale was based on Merrill's First Principles of Instruction and included items relating to key ID features categorized into five subscales: authenticity, activation of prior knowledge, demonstration, application, and integration/transfer. The authors searched for articles published in English between January 2007 and March 2017 in PubMed, Eric, and Google Scholar and calculated the mean Likert-scale score, per subscale, and interrater reliability (IRR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean Likert-scale scores calculated for all subscales were < 3.00. For the number of raters used to judge the papers in this study (varying between 7 and 10), the IRR was found to be excellent for the authenticity and integration/transfer subscales, good-to-excellent for the activation of prior knowledge and application subscales, and fair-to-good for the demonstration subscale.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results demonstrate a paucity of the description of adherence to evidence-based ID guidelines in current simulation trainings for a high-risk situation such as PPH.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in simulation (London, England)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9509554/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in simulation (London, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00228-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00228-x","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: 2

摘要

背景:对模拟训练有效性的系统评论指出,需要坚持循证教学设计(ID)指南。ID指南来源于健全的认知理论,旨在优化复杂学习(知识、技能和态度的整合)和学习迁移(已获得的知识和技能在工作场所的应用)。本研究的目的是探讨在处理产后出血(PPH)这一高危情况和全球孕产妇死亡的主要原因的模拟培训计划中,是否遵守ID指南。方法:共有40名评分员分析了32篇文章中描述的模拟训练方案。这些文章被分成四组,每组七篇文章,一组四篇文章。每个子集由七到十名评分者对ID指南的遵守程度进行评判。5分李克特评分量表基于梅里尔的《第一教学原则》,包括与关键ID特征相关的项目,分为五个子量表:真实性、激活先验知识、演示、应用和整合/转移。作者检索了2007年1月至2017年3月期间在PubMed、Eric和Google Scholar上发表的英文文章,并计算了李克特量表的平均得分、每个子量表和相互信度(IRR)。结果:各子量表计算的李克特量表平均得分均< 3.00。对于本研究中用于判断论文的评分者数量(从7到10不等),发现IRR在真实性和整合/转移子量表上是优秀的,在先验知识和应用子量表的激活上是优秀的,在演示子量表上是一般到优秀的。结论:研究结果表明,在目前针对PPH等高风险情况的模拟培训中,缺乏对循证ID指南的描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
The limited use of instructional design guidelines in healthcare simulation scenarios: an expert appraisal.

Background: Systematic reviews on simulation training effectiveness have pointed to the need to adhere to evidence-based instructional design (ID) guidelines. ID guidelines derive from sound cognitive theories and aim to optimize complex learning (integration of knowledge, skills, and attitudes) and learning transfer (application of acquired knowledge and skills in the workplace). The purpose of this study was to explore adherence to ID guidelines in simulation training programs for dealing with postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), a high-risk situation and the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide.

Methods: A total of 40 raters analyzed simulation training programs as described in 32 articles. The articles were divided into four subsets of seven articles and one subset of four articles. Each subset was judged by seven to ten raters on adherence to ID guidelines. The 5-point Likert score rating scale was based on Merrill's First Principles of Instruction and included items relating to key ID features categorized into five subscales: authenticity, activation of prior knowledge, demonstration, application, and integration/transfer. The authors searched for articles published in English between January 2007 and March 2017 in PubMed, Eric, and Google Scholar and calculated the mean Likert-scale score, per subscale, and interrater reliability (IRR).

Results: The mean Likert-scale scores calculated for all subscales were < 3.00. For the number of raters used to judge the papers in this study (varying between 7 and 10), the IRR was found to be excellent for the authenticity and integration/transfer subscales, good-to-excellent for the activation of prior knowledge and application subscales, and fair-to-good for the demonstration subscale.

Conclusion: The results demonstrate a paucity of the description of adherence to evidence-based ID guidelines in current simulation trainings for a high-risk situation such as PPH.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
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. Reclaiming identities: exploring the influence of simulation on refugee doctors' workforce integration. TEAMs go VR-validating the TEAM in a virtual reality (VR) medical team training. Theoretical foundations and implications of augmented reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality for immersive learning in health professions education.
×
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