Trial reportDysphagia2025
Telesimulation for Training in Infant Feeding: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Dysphagia, 2025. 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.
- The impact of immersive video learning on speech-language pathology students' dysphagia education: a mixed-methods study.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Student Reflections in Simulated Speech and Language Therapy Placements Using Telehealth and In-Person Formats: A Qualitative Study.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
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
Simulation is an education modality known to support clinical skill development. Unfortunately, access to simulation has been challenging, both prior to and during the pandemic. Simulation via telepractice, i.e., "telesimulation", has emerged, but little is known about whether outcomes are comparable to in-person simulation. This study compared in-person versus telesimulation learner outcomes in an infant feeding scenario. The secondary aim was to compare outcomes between novice and experienced participants.This pragmatic randomized controlled trial included speech pathologists who could attend if randomized to the in-person modality. Block randomization matched participants with < 6 months' infant feeding experience to those with > 6 months experience (2:1 ratio) into telesimulation or in-person simulation. Measures of clinical reasoning, confidence/anxiety, and satisfaction were collected, pre-, post-, and 4-weeks post-simulation.Overall, 39 clinicians completed either in-person simulation (n = 17) or telesimulation training (n = 22), including 16 experienced and 23 novice learners. Both in-person and telesimulation groups achieved significant improvements across time in clinical reasoning, self-reported confidence, and anxiety. The extent of change in clinical reasoning, confidence and anxiety was comparable between the telesimulation and in-person simulation groups. Comparing by experience, novice-level participants reported significantly greater changes in confidence and anxiety than experienced participants. Satisfaction levels were high regardless of simulation modality or experience.Participants in telesimulation and in-person simulation achieved similar improvements in the primary outcome measure of clinical reasoning, had comparable improvements in self-perceived confidence and anxiety, and demonstrated high satisfaction levels. Telesimulation is a promising means to improve clinician access to simulation training in infant feeding.
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.