Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34789233›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2021

Can a virtual microbiology simulation be as effective as the traditional Wetlab for pharmacy student education?

L Baumann-Birkbeck, S Anoopkumar-Dukie, S A Khan, M J Cheesman, M O'Donoghue, G D Grant

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

6 authors.

L Baumann-BirkbeckSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, Griffith University, 1 Parklands Dr, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia.
S Anoopkumar-DukieSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, Griffith University, 1 Parklands Dr, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia.
S A KhanSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, Griffith University, 1 Parklands Dr, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia.
M J CheesmanSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, Griffith University, 1 Parklands Dr, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia.
M O'DonoghueSquina International Centre for Infection Control, School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Room FJ502, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China.
G D GrantSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, Griffith University, 1 Parklands Dr, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia. g.grant@griffith.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2574-5442

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPharmacy practice education requires the development of proficiencies and an understanding of clinical microbiology. Learning in this area could be delivered using practical laboratory exercises, or potentially, simulation-based education. Simulation has previously successfully enhanced learning in health professional education. The current global climate due to COVID-19 has further highlighted the important role of technology-enhanced learning in delivering outcomes that meet the requisite learning objectives of a course. The aim of the present study was to compare the impact of a commercially available virtual microbiology simulation (VUMIE™) with a traditional wet laboratory (wetlab) on learner knowledge, skills and confidence in a second-year integrated pharmacotherapeutics course for Bachelor of Pharmacy students.

methodsA randomised, crossover study was employed to determine whether the simulation intervention (VUMIE™) improves learning outcomes (knowledge, skills and confidence) of pharmacy students, when compared to a traditional wetlab intervention. Each student completed three 1-2 h length sessions, for both the wetlab and VUMIE™ interventions (6 sessions total). Data was collected using surveys deployed at baseline (pre-interventions), post-intervention 1 or 2 (VUMIE™ or wetlab) and endpoint (post-interventions 1 and 2). Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS Statistics 25 and Instat™ software.

resultsResponse rates were approximately 50% at initial survey and approximately 25% at endpoint survey. VUMIE™ produced higher post-intervention knowledge scores for the multiple-choice questions compared to the wetlab, however, the highest score was achieved at endpoint. Both interventions produced statistically significant differences for mean scores compared to baseline (pre-VUMIE™ and wetlab) across the domains of knowledge, skills and confidence. VUMIE™ produced higher post-intervention mean scores for knowledge, skills and confidence compared to post-intervention mean scores for the wetlab, however there was no statistical significance between the mean score for the two interventions, thus the VUMIE™ activity produced learning outcomes comparable to the wetlab activity.

conclusionThese findings suggest VUMIE™ provides similar effects on students' knowledge, skills, and confidence as a wetlab. The simulation's implementation was not cost-prohibitive, provided students with a physically and psychologically safe learning environment, and the benefit of being able to repeat activities, supporting deliberate practice.

Indexed as

COVID-19Education, PharmacyPharmacyStudents, PharmacyCross-Over StudiesHumansSARS-CoV-2ClinicalEducationMicrobiologyPharmacyPracticeSimulation

Identifiers

PMID34789233
PMCPMC8596346

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.