ArticleBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2020
Students' perceptions of an in-house developed pharmacy serious game for professional skills training.
Article in BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An in-house three-dimensional (3D) multiplayer online role-playing game was developed for professional skills training of pharmacy students. Students play the game in a post-apocalyptic world to save humankind from zombies. They solve virtual patient encounters through visual and motion-capture technologies. Their gaming perceptions and experiences were investigated. Method: A self-administered questionnaire obtained participants' demographics, gaming interests, perceptions of game effectiveness, preferences on gaming elements and gameplay experience through the Game Engagement Questionnaire (GEQ). Pre-gameplay and post-gameplay assessments were tracked to assess student learning. Descriptive statistics and paired sample t-tests were used for analysis. Results: Fifty-five students were recruited. Two-thirds of the gameplay group (67.9%) liked the post-apocalyptic fantasy settings and heroic storyline (66.0%). Three quarters liked the modern setting (73.1%), authentic plots (73.5%) and plot animations (72.3%). Participants felt the game was effective in training health communication and patient history-taking skills (81.8%). Participants' test scores for counselling increased from 66.1%±7.6% (pre-gameplay) to 70.3%±8.0% (post-gameplay, p=0.004). The highest scoring GEQ dimension was sensory and imaginative immersion (2.92±0.74). Conclusion: Students found the game useful for pharmacy professional skills training. With proper implementation, this game can become a useful tool to enhance student learning and gear them towards clinical practices.
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.