Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35517376›Full record

ArticleBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2018

Simulated death enhances learner attitudes regarding simulation.

Chang H Park, Douglas Wetmore, Daniel Katz, Samuel DeMaria, Adam I Levine, Andrew T Goldberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Chang H ParkDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, USA.
Douglas WetmoreDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, New York, USA.
Daniel KatzDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, USA.
Samuel DeMariaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, USA.
Adam I LevineDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, USA.
Andrew T GoldbergDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

deathhealthcare educationlearner attitudesimulationsurvey

Identifiers

PMID35517376
PMCPMC8936730

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.