ArticleBMJ open2024
Development and evaluation of scenario-based e-simulation for humanitarian health training: a mixed-methods action research study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Disaster Medicine Training for Medical Students in Lebanon: Quasi-Experimental Comparison of e-Learning and Face-to-Face Modalities.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to develop and evaluate a scenario-based e-simulation (SBES) to address the limited avilability of accessible and practical training for humanitarian public health responders. The objectives included SBES customisation, effectiveness evaluation, and identifying learning-enhancing design elements.
designA university-based, mixed-methods action research design.
settingThe study was conducted at an international university's academic centre in Italy, and at a university-based master's programme in Yemen.
participantsThe study involved 20 multidisciplinary global health and education experts and 66 international medical and health sciences students.
resultsBetween September 2020 and July 2022, four SBES modules were developed, implemented and evaluated using a rapid prototype model. The modules, which targeted health professionals new to or with limited experience in the humanitarian field, included health needs assessment, essential health services, communicable diseases and health system. Formative evaluation improved the design and implementation of the SBES, which was found to be effective in the summative evaluation, evident from positive student reactions (the overall mean satisfaction rate was 6.03 out of 7, 95% CI 5.95 to 6.47) and the significant improvement in knowledge scores (p<0.001, effect size: 1.179). The identified effective design of SBES includes overlapping elements among content, strategy and technology. Poor internet access was recognised as a potential barrier to delivering the training in the humanitarian context, highlighting the need to develop an offline version in the next phase.
conclusionThe developed SBES met the training needs of the academic institution involved. The study findings will contribute to advancing future SBES training initiatives for disaster medicine and global health. Further studies are recommended to evaluate and address the challenges associated with SBES implementation beyond the study setting.
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.