Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29752249›Full record

ArticleJMIR serious games2018

Virtual Antenatal Encounter and Standardized Simulation Assessment (VANESSA): Pilot Study.

Patrick Motz, Megan Gray, Taylor Sawyer, Jennifer Kett, Douglas Danforth, Kellen Maicher, Rachel Umoren

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR serious games, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Scoping Literature Review of Digital Empathy Games in Healthcare Education and Training.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Patrick Motz *Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2082-9214
Megan GrayDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9172-6821
Taylor SawyerDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3908-8957
Jennifer KettDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Mary Bridge Children's Hospital, Tacoma, WA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1894-2197
Douglas DanforthMedical Simulation, Obstetrics and Gynocology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6029-4210
Kellen MaicherMedical Simulation, Obstetrics and Gynocology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7110-661X
Rachel UmorenDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2356-9278
University of Washington · USThe Ohio State University · USMary Bridge Children's Health Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrenatal counseling at the limits of newborn viability involves sensitive interactions between neonatal providers and families. Empathetic discussions are currently learned through practice in times of high stress. Decision aids may help improve provider communication but have not been universally adopted. Virtual standardized patients are increasingly recognized as a modality for education, but prenatal counseling simulations have not been described. To be valuable as a tool, a virtual patient would need to accurately portray emotions and elicit a realistic response from the provider.

objectiveTo determine if neonatal providers can accurately identify a standardized virtual prenatal patient's emotional states and examine the frequency of empathic responses to statements made by the patient.

methodsA panel of Neonatologists, Simulation Specialists, and Ethicists developed a dialogue and identified empathic responses. Virtual Antenatal Encounter and Standardized Simulation Assessment (VANESSA), a screen-based simulation of a woman at 23 weeks gestation, was capable of displaying anger, fear, sadness, and happiness through animations. Twenty-four neonatal providers, including a subgroup with an ethics interest, were asked to identify VANESSA's emotions 28 times, respond to statements, and answer open-ended questions. The emotions were displayed in different formats: without dialogue, with text dialogue, and with audio dialogue. Participants completed a post-encounter survey describing demographics and experience. Data were reported using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data from open ended questions (eg, "What would you do?") were examined using thematic analysis.

resultsHalf of our participants had over 10 years of clinical experience. Most participants reported using medical research (18/23, 78%) and mortality calculators (17/23, 74%). Only the ethics-interested subgroup (10/23, 43%) listed counseling literature (7/10, 70%). Of 672 attempts, participants accurately identified VANESSA's emotions 77.8% (523/672) of the time, and most (14/23, 61%) reported that they were confident in identifying these emotions. The ethics interest group was more likely to choose empathic responses (P=.002). Participants rated VANESSA as easy to use (22/23, 96%) and reported that she had realistic dialogue (15/23, 65%).

conclusionsThis pilot study shows that a prenatal counseling simulation is feasible and can yield useful data on prenatal counseling communication. Our participants showed a high rate of emotion recognition and empathy in their responses.

Indexed as

ethicsprenatal counselingsimulation

Identifiers

PMID29752249
PMCPMC5970284
OpenAlexW2802337027

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.