ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2023
The use of Simulated Observations in Medical Simulation and its effect on perceived realism: A pilot project.
Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Simulation is an effective teaching method with increasing growth and recognition and refers to the artificial representation of a real-life scenario. The aim of this study was to compare simulation with and without the use of a simulated observations monitor and to investigate differences in students' impression of realism, engagement, learning, and enjoyment. Methods: Simulation sessions were delivered to second and third-year Swansea University Medical Students, and a total of 15 students were included. Students carried out 2-3 scenarios each with and without the use of a simulated observations monitor. Data collection was conducted via student surveys and a joint interview. Results: All students had an increased sense of realism with the use of the simulated observations monitor, feeling a closer resemblance to what would be experienced in clinical practice. They felt this improved their learning, making them more prepared for the real-life scenario. The monitor was more dynamic, responding to their interventions, helping them maintain focus and engagement throughout. A key theme was the reduction of interruptions or deviations from the scenario to communicate with the examiner or ask for observations. The visual and audible affects provided additional stimuli, adding to the realistic nature of the simulation. Discussion: Simulation has been shown to be a useful education tool, but there is less evidence to support the use of higher fidelity over lower fidelity simulation. The terms are often used inconsistently, and many factors affect the students' perceived sense of realism. This study shows that the addition of a simple device such as the simulated observations monitor can produce a higher level of fidelity, particularly in terms of the stimuli provided and student perceptions of realism, which may be effective in improving engagement with the simulation, learning, and aid recall when presented with similar scenarios in a real-life situation.
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.