ArticleBMC medical education2023
A scoping review of remote facilitation during simulation-based healthcare education.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chart, Don't Theme. Why Reflexive Thematic Analysis is a Poor Fit for Scoping Reviews.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Comparing the effectiveness of online and onsite training for simulation facilitator: a quasi-experiment.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Telesimulation in Medical Education for High-Acuity Low-Occurrence Procedures and Clinical Encounters for Physicians and Medical Trainees in Emergency Medicine: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Facilitators' experiences with virtual simulation and their impact on learning.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRemote facilitation is a synchronous distance education method where instructors facilitate a lesson, in real-time, in physically separate conditions. In this scoping review, we aimed to describe types of remote facilitation used in a healthcare simulation, the influences on learner outcomes, and related factors.
methodsWe accessed PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, and Web of Science using our search strategies. Five reviewers performed the review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) framework, and the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines.
resultsWe included a total of 29 articles presenting 28 simulation studies. The most common tool was videoconferencing (n = 26, 89.7%). Knowledge improvement was the most frequently measured outcome. There was no significant difference in learning outcomes between the two teaching modes. There were differences in learners' preferences and satisfaction with remote facilitators before and after COVID-19.
conclusionsOur scoping review indicates that remote facilitation has been widely accepted in many healthcare professions using various types of simulation modalities. Remote facilitation can be used to overcome logistical problems of synchronous multi-location education, and to improve learner knowledge, skills, and confidence measured by instructor evaluation or self-assessment.
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.