Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34880938›Full record

ArticleObstetric medicine2021

Effectiveness of simulation-based training for obstetric internal medicine: Impact of cognitive load and emotions on knowledge acquisition and retention.

Kelle D Hurd, Meghan Eo Vlasschaert, T Lee Ann Hawkins, Jolene Haws, Julia N Kupis, Irene Wy Ma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Obstetric medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Kelle D HurdDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1259-3360
Meghan Eo VlasschaertDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
T Lee Ann HawkinsDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Jolene HawsDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Julia N KupisW21C, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Irene Wy MaDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7580-0171

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSimulation-based training's impact on learning outcomes may be related to cognitive load or emotions during training. We evaluated the association of validated measures of cognitive load and emotion with learning outcomes in simulation-based obstetric internal medicine cases.

methodsAll internal medicine learners (n = 15) who completed the knowledge test pre-training, post-training (knowledge acquisition), and at 3-6 months (knowledge retention) for all three simulation cases were included.

resultsMean knowledge scores differed over time in all three cases (p < 0.0001 for all). Knowledge retention scores were significantly higher only for cases 1 and 3. Cognitive load associated with frustration was positively associated with knowledge acquisition for case 2 (beta = 5.18, P = 0.007), while excitement was negatively associated with knowledge retention in case 1 (beta = -33.07, p = 0.04).

conclusionSimulation-based education for obstetric internal medicine can be effective in select cases. Attention to cognitive load and emotion may optimize learning outcomes.

Indexed as

cognitive loadgraduate medical educationpatient simulationSimulation training

Identifiers

PMID34880938
PMCPMC8646217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.