Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35655257›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2022

Impact of classroom-based MASK-ED™ (KRS simulation) on physiotherapy student clinical performance: a randomized cluster trial.

Tayne Ryall, Elisabeth Preston, Niruthikha Mahendran, Bernie Bissett

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2022. 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
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tayne RyallFaculty of Health, University of Canberra, ACT, Canberra, Australia. Tayne.Ryall@canberra.edu.au.
Elisabeth PrestonFaculty of Health, University of Canberra, ACT, Canberra, Australia. Elisabeth.Preston@canberra.edu.au.
Niruthikha MahendranSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Bernie BissettFaculty of Health, University of Canberra, ACT, Canberra, Australia.
University of Canberra · AUUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn physiotherapy there is a growing body of literature exploring the benefits simulation could have in the university-setting, prior to the commencement of work-integrated learning. MASK-ED™ simulation is one form of simulation that could be beneficial for student learning and improve performance in the clinical setting. MASK-ED™ simulation involves an educator donning a silicone mask and portraying a patient role that has been specifically developed to meet learning objectives.

objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of MASK-ED™ simulation compared to role-play with peers for training pre-clinical physiotherapy students.

methodsA single-centre, single-blind, cluster randomized trial with concealed allocation, between group post-measures, and intention-to-treat analysis was conducted at an Australian university between February 2018 - January 2021. Participants were 144 physiotherapy students, cluster randomized by tutorial groups (exp n = 70, con n = 74), undertaking their neurological curricula. The experimental group was exposed to MASK-ED™ simulation in five out of a potential thirty-two tutorials (16%) whilst the control continued with role-play with peers. The primary outcome measure was Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice scores from the students' rehabilitation work-integrated learning clinical placement. These were compared between the experimental and control groups using Mann-Whitney U tests. Secondary outcome measures include practical and written examination scores. These were compared between groups via independent t-tests. Participant satisfaction surveys were also administered to the experimental group.

resultsOne hundred thirty-two participants' (exp n = 62, con n = 72) results were analyzed. There were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups for Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice scores (p = 0.699-0.995). There were no significant differences found between the groups, across the secondary outcome measures. Participants found MASK-ED™ simulation was somewhat helpful for preparing them for clinical practice, however felt that a group setting was not as effective as a one-on-one encounter would have been.

conclusionsMASK-ED™ simulation was no more effective than role-play with peers in preparing physiotherapy students for work-integrated learning. The influence of the design of simulation on effective learning and the number of classroom-based simulation encounters required to impact clinical performance requires further investigation.

Indexed as

Physical Therapy ModalitiesStudentsAustraliaHumansPatient SimulationSingle-Blind MethodEducationPhysical therapyRandomized control trialSimulation trainingStudentsUniversities

Identifiers

PMID35655257
PMCPMC9164409
OpenAlexW4281673239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.