ArticlePloS one2022
Form for planning and elaborating high fidelity simulation scenarios: A validation study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical simulation for the development of communication and teamwork in nursing.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Every human being has the right to safe, dignified and harm-free care in health institutions. High fidelity simulation has been used in teaching for the training and continuing education of health professionals to promote quality, safe and humanized patient care. Elaborating scenarios is an important phase to provide a simulation-based experience, and is relevant in the teaching-learning process. The objective of this study was to validate the content and applicability of the High Fidelity Simulation Scenario Planning and Development Form and its Operational Manual. The form could be used to development of scenarios to medicine, nursing, physiotherapy and as well as other specialties in the healthcare. This was a methodological validation study of the form and its manual content by experts in simulation and its feasibility, conducted in two phases: Phase 1: eight experts were selected using the "snowball" sampling technique to validate the content measured by the content validity index; Phase 2 (test): the form and its operational manual validated by the experts were made available to 28 participants in order to elaborate scenarios for the feasibility assessment and participation in the focus group. All items in the form and in the operational manual reached a content validity index above 0.80. The total content validity index was 0.98. The evaluation of the usability of the instruments carried out by the participants reached a percentage above 96.43% in all alternatives except for the item "It was easy to use the form to build your scenario" (75%). Eight participants were present in the focus group. Focus group discussions were categorized into completeness, practicality and usefulness according to comments and suggestions. The form and its operational manual proved to be valid instruments.
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.