Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35771316›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2022

More than surgical tools: a systematic review of robots as didactic tools for the education of professionals in health sciences.

Samuel Marcos-Pablos, Francisco José García-Peñalvo

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Low-cost simulator for intra-abdominal bleeding.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Samuel Marcos-PablosGRIAL Research Group, University of Salamanca, IUCE, Paseo de Canalejas 169, 37008, Salamanca, Spain. samuelmp@usal.es.ORCID 0000-0003-3546-2822
Francisco José García-PeñalvoGRIAL Research Group, University of Salamanca, IUCE, Paseo de Canalejas 169, 37008, Salamanca, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Within the field of robots in medical education, most of the work done during the last years has focused on surgeon training in robotic surgery, practicing surgery procedures through simulators. Apart from surgical education, robots have also been widely employed in assistive and rehabilitation procedures, where education has traditionally focused in the patient. Therefore, there has been extensive review bibliography in the field of medical robotics focused on surgical and rehabilitation and assistive robots, but there is a lack of survey papers that explore the potential of robotics in the education of healthcare students and professionals beyond their training in the use of the robotic system. The scope of the current review are works in which robots are used as didactic tools for the education of professionals in health sciences, investigating the enablers and barriers that affect the use of robots as learning facilitators. Systematic literature searches were conducted in WOS and Scopus, yielding a total of 3812 candidate papers. After removing duplicates, inclusion criteria were defined and applied, resulting in 171 papers. An in-depth quality assessment was then performed leading to 26 papers for qualitative synthesis. Results show that robots in health sciences education are still developed with a roboticist mindset, without clearly incorporating aspects of the teaching/learning process. However, they have proven potential to be used in health sciences as they allow to parameterize procedures, autonomously guide learners to achieve greater engagement, or enable collective learning including patients and instructors "in the loop". Although there exist documented added-value benefits, further research and efforts needs to be done to foster the inclusion of robots as didactic tools in the curricula of health sciences professionals. On the one hand, by analyzing how robotic technology should be developed to become more flexible and usable to support both teaching and learning processes in health sciences education, as final users are not necessarily well-versed in how to use it. On the other, there continues to be a need to develop effective and standard robotic enhanced learning evaluation tools, as well good quality studies that describe effective evaluation of robotic enhanced education for professionals in health sciences. As happens with other technologies when applied to the health sciences field, studies often fail to provide sufficient detail to support transferability or direct future robotic health care education programs.

Indexed as

RoboticsCurriculumHealth PersonnelHumansLearningMidazolamMidazolamEducationHealth sciencesRoboticsSystematic reviewTraining

Identifiers

PMID35771316
PMCPMC9244888

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.