Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34749833›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2021

Perspectives of engagement in distance debriefings.

Cynthia J Mosher, Alex Morton, Janice C Palaganas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Cynthia J MosherAlfaisal University College of Medicine, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. cymosher@alfaisal.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8436-1318
Alex MortonMGH Institute of Health Professions, Charlestown Navy Yard, 36 1st Avenue, Boston, MA, 02129-4557, USA.
Janice C PalaganasMGH Institute of Health Professions, Charlestown Navy Yard, 36 1st Avenue, Boston, MA, 02129-4557, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic propelled remote simulation and online distance debriefings. Like in-person debriefings, educators seek to facilitate reflective learning conversations, yet, in the online setting, educators face challenges to learner engagement that differ considerably from in-person debriefing.

methodsWe performed a thematic analysis of fourteen semi-structured interviews conducted with fourteen participants who had experience with virtual debriefing as an educator or as a learner. We explored the experiences and perceptions of both educators and learners to provide a more in-depth understanding of the factors that influence engagement in online distance debriefing.

resultsOur study identified the challenges online distance debriefing poses for educators and learners. We found ten themes that support the Community of Inquiry (CoI) theoretical framework and provided additional considerations related to internal and external factors of engagement, including the influence of the simulation, false engagement, and self-presence.

conclusionsWe believe these findings can inform the design and facilitation of online debriefings to help provide educators with guidance and innovative solutions to best engage their learners in the challenging online environment.

Indexed as

Communities of inquiryDebriefingDistanceEngagementHealthcare simulationHealth professions educationLearning conversationsOnlinePandemicRemote

Identifiers

PMID34749833
PMCPMC8575148

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.