TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation versus other instructional methods
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Cook, David A.
AU - Brydges, Ryan
AU - Hamstra, Stanley J.
AU - Zendejas, Benjamin
AU - Szostek, Jason H.
AU - Wang, Amy T.
AU - Erwin, Patricia J.
AU - Hatala, Rose
PY - 2012/10
Y1 - 2012/10
N2 - To determine the comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation, we summarized the results of studies comparing technology-enhanced simulation training with nonsimulation instruction for health professions learners. We systematically searched databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus through May 2011 for relevant articles. Working in duplicate, we abstracted information on instructional design, outcomes, and study quality. From 10,903 candidate articles, we identified 92 eligible studies. In random-effects meta-analysis, pooled effect sizes (positive numbers favoring simulation) were as follows: satisfaction outcomes, 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.81; n = 20 studies); knowledge, 0.30 (0.16-0.43; n = 42); time measure of skills, 0.33 (0.00-0.66; n = 14); process measure of skills, 0.38 (0.24-0.52; n = 51); product measure of skills, 0.66 (0.30-1.02; n = 11); time measure of behavior, 0.56 (-0.07 to 1.18; n = 7); process measure of behavior, 0.77 (-0.13 to 1.66; n = 11); and patient effects, 0.36 (-0.06 to 0.78; n = 9). For 5 studies reporting comparative costs, simulation was more expensive and more effective. In summary, in comparison with other instruction, technology-enhanced simulation is associated with small to moderate positive effects.
AB - To determine the comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation, we summarized the results of studies comparing technology-enhanced simulation training with nonsimulation instruction for health professions learners. We systematically searched databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus through May 2011 for relevant articles. Working in duplicate, we abstracted information on instructional design, outcomes, and study quality. From 10,903 candidate articles, we identified 92 eligible studies. In random-effects meta-analysis, pooled effect sizes (positive numbers favoring simulation) were as follows: satisfaction outcomes, 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.81; n = 20 studies); knowledge, 0.30 (0.16-0.43; n = 42); time measure of skills, 0.33 (0.00-0.66; n = 14); process measure of skills, 0.38 (0.24-0.52; n = 51); product measure of skills, 0.66 (0.30-1.02; n = 11); time measure of behavior, 0.56 (-0.07 to 1.18; n = 7); process measure of behavior, 0.77 (-0.13 to 1.66; n = 11); and patient effects, 0.36 (-0.06 to 0.78; n = 9). For 5 studies reporting comparative costs, simulation was more expensive and more effective. In summary, in comparison with other instruction, technology-enhanced simulation is associated with small to moderate positive effects.
KW - Educational technology
KW - Instructional design
KW - Instructional method
KW - Medical education
KW - Simulation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867183952&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867183952&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182614f95
DO - 10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182614f95
M3 - Article
C2 - 23032751
AN - SCOPUS:84867183952
SN - 1559-2332
VL - 7
SP - 308
EP - 320
JO - Simulation in Healthcare
JF - Simulation in Healthcare
IS - 5
ER -