ArticleBMJ open2023
Levelling the learning ground for healthcare professionals across the world through SIMBA: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Task-shifting and system readiness: a narrative review of strategies for pediatric emergency care in low-resource settings.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Review
- Findings from a public engagement programme for school children aged 13-15 years about endocrinology.Endocrine connections · 2024Article
- Role of Artificial Intelligence in Global Surgery: A Review of Opportunities and Challenges.Cureus · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the acceptance, strengths and limitations of Simulation via Instant Messaging-Birmingham Advance (SIMBA) in low/middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs), on healthcare professionals' professional development and learning.
designCross-sectional study.
settingOnline (either mobile or computer/ laptop or both).
participants462 participants (LMICs: 29.7%, n=137 and HICs: 71.3%, n=325) were included.
interventionsSixteen SIMBA sessions were conducted between May 2020 and October 2021. Doctors-in-training solved anonymised real-life clinical scenarios over WhatsApp. Participants completed pre-SIMBA and post-SIMBA surveys. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were identified using Kirkpatrick's training evaluation model. LMIC and HIC participants' reactions (level 1) and self-reported performance, perceptions and improvements in core competencies (level 2a) were compared using the χ
resultsPostsession, there were no significant differences in application to practice (p=0.266), engagement (p=0.197) and overall session quality (p=0.101) between LMIC and HIC participants (level 1). Participants from HICs showed better knowledge of patient management (LMICs: 77.4% vs HICs: 86.5%; p=0.01), whereas participants from LMICs self-reported higher improvement in professionalism (LMICs: 41.6% vs HICs: 31.1%; p=0.02). There were no significant differences in improved clinical competency scores in patient care (p=0.28), systems-based practice (p=0.05), practice-based learning (p=0.15) and communication skills (p=0.22), between LMIC and HIC participants (level 2a). In content analysis, the major strengths of SIMBA over traditional methods were providing individualised, structured and engaging sessions.
conclusionsHealthcare professionals from both LMICs and HICs self-reported improvement in their clinical competencies, illustrating that SIMBA can produce equivalent teaching experiences. Furthermore, SIMBA's virtual nature enables international accessibility and presents potential for global scalability. This model could steer future standardised global health education policy development in LMICs.
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.