Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2019
Evaluation of a Mobile Telesimulation Unit to Train Rural and Remote Practitioners on High-Acuity Low-Occurrence Procedures: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Hands-on Distance Simulation of Technical Skills: A Systematic Review.Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2026Pooled it
- Telehealth-guided provider-to-provider communication to improve rural health: A systematic review.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2024Pooled it
- Teaching ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia using remote immersive virtual reality: a randomized controlled trial.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Remote teaching system for robotic surgery and its validation: results of a randomized controlled study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Trial
- Communication delay increases procedure time and instructor task load during simulated suturing by novices.NPJ microgravity · 2026Article
- Choosing Wisely for Simulation-Based Learning in Health Professions Education.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Telesimulation in Medical Education for High-Acuity Low-Occurrence Procedures and Clinical Encounters for Physicians and Medical Trainees in Emergency Medicine: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Comparing telesimulation-based learning and e-learning as remote education delivery methods in pre-hospital practice.British paramedic journal · 2024Article
- The Growing Need for Web-Based Simulation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2024Review
- Distanced Large Group Simulations as a Learning Method for Interprofessional Collaboration.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
- Review
- Telesimulation for the Training of Medical Students in Neonatal Resuscitation.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A scoping review of remote facilitation during simulation-based healthcare education.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Virtual fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) boot-camp using telesimulation: an educational solution during the COVID-19 pandemic.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Technology-enhanced simulation in emergency medicine: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis 1991-2021.AEM education and training · 2023Article
- Tele-Simulated Instruction and Learner Perceptions of Fiberoptic Intubation and Nasopharyngoscopy: A Pilot Study.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2022Article
- A practical guide for translating in-person simulation curriculum to telesimulation.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2022Article
- Low-Cost "Telesimulation" Training Improves Real Patient Pediatric Shock Outcomes in India.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Comparison of In-Person and Telesimulation for Critical Care Training during the COVID-19 Pandemic.ATS scholar · 2021Article
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
backgroundThe provision of acute medical care in rural and remote areas presents unique challenges for practitioners. Therefore, a tailored approach to training providers would prove beneficial. Although simulation-based medical education (SBME) has been shown to be effective, access to such training can be difficult and costly in rural and remote areas.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the educational efficacy of simulation-based training of an acute care procedure delivered remotely, using a portable, self-contained unit outfitted with off-the-shelf and low-cost telecommunications equipment (mobile telesimulation unit, MTU), versus the traditional face-to-face approach. A conceptual framework based on a combination of Kirkpatrick's Learning Evaluation Model and Miller's Clinical Assessment Framework was used.
methodsA written procedural skills test was used to assess Miller's learning level- knows-at 3 points in time: preinstruction, immediately postinstruction, and 1 week later. To assess procedural performance (shows how), participants were video recorded performing chest tube insertion before and after hands-on supervised training. A modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) checklist and a Global Rating Scale (GRS) of operative performance were used by a blinded rater to assess participants' performance. Kirkpatrick's reaction was measured through subject completion of a survey on satisfaction with the learning experiences and an evaluation of training.
resultsA total of 69 medical students participated in the study. Students were randomly assigned to 1 of the following 3 groups: comparison (25/69, 36%), intervention (23/69, 33%), or control (21/69, 31%). For knows, as expected, no significant differences were found between the groups on written knowledge (posttest, P=.13). For shows how, no significant differences were found between the comparison and intervention groups on the procedural skills learning outcomes immediately after the training (OSATS checklist and GRS, P=1.00). However, significant differences were found for the control versus comparison groups (OSATS checklist, P<.001; GRS, P=.02) and the control versus intervention groups (OSATS checklist, P<.001; GRS, P=.01) on the pre- and postprocedural performance. For reaction, there were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and comparison groups on the satisfaction with learning items (P=.65 and P=.79) or the evaluation of the training (P=.79, P=.45, and P=.31).
conclusionsOur results demonstrate that simulation-based training delivered remotely, applying our MTU concept, can be an effective way to teach procedural skills. Participants trained remotely in the MTU had comparable learning outcomes (shows how) to those trained face-to-face. Both groups received statistically significant higher procedural performance scores than those in the control group. Participants in both instruction groups were equally satisfied with their learning and training (reaction). We believe that mobile telesimulation could be an effective way of providing expert mentorship and overcoming a number of barriers to delivering SBME in rural and remote locations.
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.