ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2024
Faculty development programmes in simulation-based teaching: An exploration of current practices.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Designing a context-sensitive faculty development architecture for simulation facilitators: lessons from a practice-based implementation.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Using an Analog Multifunctional Model to Develop Cognitive Skills in Dental Implants.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Infographics of published articles.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Implementing the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH) Tool for Training Medical Faculty.Cureus · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Simulation-based teaching (SBT) has become integral to healthcare education, offering a dynamic and immersive learning experience for bridging theoretical knowledge with real-world clinical practice. Faculty members play a crucial role in shaping the effectiveness of simulation-based education, necessitating the implementation of comprehensive faculty development programmes. This scoping review explores existing literature on training programmes for simulation-based teaching, focusing on strategies employed and the overall impact on educators and the quality of simulation-based education. Methods: The scoping review comprised five sequential steps: identifying the research question; identifying relevant studies; study selection; charting the data; and collating, summarising, and reporting the results. The research questions focused on existing practices and approaches in faculty development for simulation-based teaching, challenges or barriers reported, and the effectiveness of utilised methods and strategies. Results: A systematic search of databases yielded 13 studies meeting inclusion criteria out of 1570 initially screened papers. These studies provided insights into various aspects of faculty development programmes, including their nature, duration, and participant profiles. Despite the diversity in approaches, detailed, specialty-specific programmes were scarce, especially in anaesthesiology. Challenges, while implicit, lacked explicit exploration. Most studies reported positive outcomes, emphasising achievement of learning objectives, appreciable course content, and relevance to teaching practices. Conclusion: This scoping review describes the existing literature regarding the faculty training or development programmes related to SBT. The programmes target various health professionals and have a wide range of durations. The need for such a programme targeting anaesthesiologists is emphasised.
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.