Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28148296›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2017

Comparative effectiveness of a serious game and an e-module to support patient safety knowledge and awareness.

Mary E W Dankbaar, Olivier Richters, Cor J Kalkman, Gerrie Prins, Olle T J Ten Cate, Jeroen J G van Merrienboer, Stephanie C E Schuit

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Gamification of health professions education: a systematic review.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mary E W DankbaarInstitute of Medical Education Research, Erasmus University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.dankbaar@erasmusmc.nl.
Olivier RichtersFaculty of Business Informatics, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Cor J KalkmanDepartment of Anesthesiology at University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gerrie PrinsDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Olle T J Ten CateCenter for Research and Development of Education, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jeroen J G van MerrienboerDepartment of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Educational Development and Research, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Stephanie C E SchuitDepartment of Emergency Care and Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSerious games have the potential to teach complex cognitive skills in an engaging way, at relatively low costs. Their flexibility in use and scalability makes them an attractive learning tool, but more research is needed on the effectiveness of serious games compared to more traditional formats such e-modules. We investigated whether undergraduate medical students developed better knowledge and awareness and were more motivated after learning about patient-safety through a serious game than peers who studied the same topics using an e-module.

methodsFourth-year medical students were randomly assigned to either a serious game that included video-lectures, biofeedback exercises and patient missions (n = 32) or an e-module, that included text-based lectures on the same topics (n = 34). A third group acted as a historical control-group without extra education (n = 37). After the intervention, which took place during the clinical introduction course, before the start of the first rotation, all students completed a knowledge test, a self-efficacy test and a motivation questionnaire. During the following 10-week clinical rotation they filled out weekly questionnaires on patient-safety awareness and stress.

resultsThe results showed patient safety knowledge had equally improved in the game group and e-module group compared to controls, who received no extra education. Average learning-time was 3 h for the game and 1 h for the e-module-group. The serious game was evaluated as more engaging; the e-module as more easy to use. During rotations, students in the three groups reported low and similar levels of patient-safety awareness and stress. Students who had treated patients successfully during game missions experienced higher self-efficacy and less stress during their rotation than students who treated patients unsuccessfully.

conclusionsVideo-lectures (in a game) and text-based lectures (in an e-module) can be equally effective in developing knowledge on specific topics. Although serious games are strongly engaging for students and stimulate them to study longer, they do not necessarily result in better performance in patient safety issues.

Indexed as

Computer-Assisted InstructionPatient SafetyVideo GamesAnalysis of VarianceAwarenessChi-Square DistributionClinical ClerkshipEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMaleProgram EvaluationSelf EfficacyStress, PsychologicalStudents, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesDesign-based researchKnowledgeMotivationPatient SafetyPerformanceSelf-efficacySerious games

Identifiers

PMID28148296
PMCPMC5289006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.