ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2017
Sharing simulation-based training courses between institutions: opportunities and challenges.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Education Research: "Simulation Sharing": Use of a Cardiac Arrest Management Course Developed for Medicine Residents Applied to Neurocritical Care Fellows.Neurology. Education · 2025Article
- Review
- Evaluating the Utility of a Near-Peer Situation-Based Course to Prepare Medical Students for the UK Foundation Programme: A Pilot Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2023Article
- Evaluating Simulation-Based Tobacco Treatment Scenarios for Providers Delivering Treatment for People Living With Mental Illnesses.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSharing simulation-based training (SBT) courses between institutions could reduce time to develop new content but also presents challenges. We evaluate the process of sharing SBT courses across institutions in a mixed method study estimating the time required and identifying barriers and potential solutions.
methodsTwo US academic medical institutions explored instructor experiences with the process of sharing four courses (two at each site) using personal interviews and a written survey and estimated the time needed to develop new content vs implement existing SBT courses.
resultsThe project team spent approximately 618 h creating a collaboration infrastructure to support course sharing. Sharing two SBT courses was estimated to save 391 h compared with developing two new courses. In the qualitative analysis, participants noted the primary benefit of course sharing was time savings. Barriers included difficulty finding information and understanding overall course flow. Suggestions for improvement included establishing a standardized template, clearly identifying the target audience, providing a course overview, communicating with someone familiar with the original SBT course, employing an intuitive file-sharing platform, and considering local culture, context, and needs.
conclusionsSharing SBT courses between institutions is feasible but not without challenges. An initial investment in a sharing infrastructure may facilitate downstream time savings compared with developing content de novo.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.