ArticleBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2018
Simulated death enhances learner attitudes regarding simulation.
Article in BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chest Pain on the Ward: A Simulation Scenario for Rural Family and Emergency Medicine Trainees.Cureus · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the widespread use of simulated death in healthcare education, some view it as a controversial learning tool due to potential psychological harm. Others believe that allowing death during simulation enhances participant learning. Sparse data exist in the literature about learner attitudes towards simulated death. Our objective was to establish a link between exposure to simulated death and learner attitudes regarding simulation. Our hypothesis was that exposure to simulated death will positively affect learner attitudes towards simulation. Methods: Anonymous surveys were distributed to participants of simulations conducted by our department from January 2014 to December 2015. Collected survey data included total number of simulation scenarios, exposure to death and participants' views towards simulation afterwards. Participants also rated the simulation on a Likert scale. We compared demographic and simulation data for participants who experienced simulated death versus participants who did not. Exposure to death and clinical level were included as predictor variables in logistic regressions using the simulator experience variables as outcomes. Results: 250 survey responses were analysed. 64% of participants were attendings. 82% of participants experienced death during simulation. The group that experienced simulated death gave significantly higher ratings (4.77 vs 4.50, p=0.004) and a higher percentage of maximum ratings on the Likert scale (83% vs 59%, p=0.0002). More participants who experienced death thought that simulated death could enhance learning (76% vs 59%, p=0.021). When adjusted for training level, those who experienced death in simulation were nearly twice as likely to think that death can enhance learning (p=0.049) and 133% more likely to give the simulation the highest rating (p=0.036). Conclusions: Survey participants who experienced simulated death were more likely to think that death can enhance learning and more likely to give the simulation the highest rating, thereby demonstrating that exposure to simulated death positively affects learner attitudes regarding simulation.
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.