Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35516824›Full record

SynthesisBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2021

Simulation training in non-cancer palliative care for healthcare workers: a systematic review of controlled studies.

Joanne Tropea, Ross Bicknell, Debra Nestel, Caroline A Brand, Christina E Johnson, Sanjoy K Paul, Brian H Le, Wen Kwang Lim

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Joanne TropeaDepartment of Medicine and Aged Care, Melbourne Health, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5799-3977
Ross BicknellDepartment of Medicine and Aged Care, Melbourne Health, Parkville, Australia.
Debra NestelMonash Institute for Health & Clinical Education, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Caroline A BrandDepartment of Medicine - Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Christina E JohnsonMonash Doctors Education, Monash Health, Clayton, Australia.
Sanjoy K PaulDepartment of Medicine - Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Brian H LeDepartment of Palliative Care, Melbourne Health, Parkville, Australia.
Wen Kwang LimDepartment of Medicine and Aged Care, Melbourne Health, Parkville, Australia.
The Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUMelbourne Health · AUMonash Health · AUMonash University · AUPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The need for healthcare workers (HCWs) to have skills and knowledge in non-cancer palliative care has been recognised. Simulation is increasingly being used for palliative care training, offering participants the opportunity to learn in a realistic environment and fully interactive way. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to summarise and critically appraise controlled studies on simulation training in non-cancer palliative care for HCWs. Selection: Medline, CINAHL, PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched using palliative care and simulation terms. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised RCTs and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and undertook full article review using predefined selection criteria. Studies that met the inclusion criteria had data extracted and risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care risk of bias criteria. Findings: Five articles were included: three RCTs and two CBA studies. All studies assessed learners' palliative care communication skills, most studies evaluated learners' perception of change in skills and one study assessed impact on patient outcomes and learners' change in behaviour when applied in practice. There was variation in intervention content, intensity and duration, outcome measures and study design, making it difficult to compare and synthesise results. Conclusion: There is a paucity of evidence to support simulation training to improve non-cancer palliative care. This review highlights the need for more robust research, including multicentre studies that use standardised outcome measures to assess clinician skills, changes in clinical practice and patient-related outcomes.

Indexed as

Literature ReviewSimulation Training

Identifiers

PMID35516824
PMCPMC8936877
OpenAlexW3049120229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.