ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2020
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- A theory-informed approach to identify barriers to utilising Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in practice: from vicious cycles to sustainable solutions.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026Article
- Optimisation of systems, safety and efficiency using simulation: a qualitative exploration of the value proposition for healthcare leaders.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2025Article
- The effect of a team-based blended simulation training program on cardiopulmonary resuscitation on healthcare professionals' perception, performance, and costs: a mixed-method study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Immersive 360° videos in health and social care education: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Cultural Historical Activity Theory for Studying Practice-Based Learning and Change in Medical Education.Advances in medical education and practice · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe healthcare needs of our societies are continual changing and evolving. In order to meet these needs, healthcare provision has to be dynamic and reactive to provide the highest standards of safe care. Therefore, there is a continual need to generate new evidence and implement it within healthcare contexts. In recent times, in situ simulation has proven to have been an important educational modality to accelerate individuals' and teams' skills and adaptability to deliver care in local contexts. However, due to the increasing complexity of healthcare, including in community settings, an expanded theoretical informed view of in situ simulation is needed as a form of education that can drive organizational as well as individual learning. MAIN BODY: Cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) provides us with analytical tools to recognize and analyse complex health care systems. Making visible the key elements of an in situ simulation process and their interconnections, CHAT facilitates development of a system-level view of needs of change.
conclusionIn this paper, we theorize how CHAT could help guide in situ simulation processes-to generate greater insights beyond the specific simulation context and bring about meaningful transformation of an organizational activity.
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.