ArticleBMC nursing2023
Including audience response systems in debriefing. A mixed study during nursing simulation-based learning.
Article in BMC nursing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing two post-resuscitation debriefing frameworks: a randomized cross-over simulation study.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Observational
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
backgroundThe audience response systems are being implemented to support active learning in nursing degree programs. The benefits of audience response systems have been studied in lecture-based classes and seminars, but their advantages or inconveniences when included in the debriefing phase of a high-fidelity clinical simulation have not been explored. The study aim was to discover student´s experience about using of interactive questions during debriefing, and the self-perceived effects on attention, participation and motivation.
methodsA Mixed-methods study was used exploratory sequential design in a university. The participants were 4th-year students enrolled in the Nursing Degree in a university in Southern Spain. (1) Qualitative phase: a phenomenological approach was utilized, and focus groups were used for data-collection. (2) Quantitative phase: cross-sectional descriptive study using a questionnaire designed "ad hoc", on the experiences on the use of interactive questions in the debriefing phase and the Debriefing Experience Scale.
results(1) Qualitative phase: the students highlighted the facilitating role of the interactive questions during the reflection part of the debriefing, and mentioned that the interactive questions helped with stimulating attention, participation, and motivation during the analytical part of the debriefing; (2) Quantitative phase: it was observed that the best evaluated dimension was "Motivation", with a mean of 4.7 (SD = 0.480), followed by the dimension "Participation", with a mean of 4.66 (SD = 0.461), and lastly, the dimension "Attention", with a mean of 4.64 (SD = 0.418).
conclusionsThe use of interactive questions contributed the attention, participation, and motivation of the students during the debriefing, contributing towards a highly satisfactory experience of high-fidelity clinical simulation.
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.