ArticleCureus2024
In-Person Versus Online Training in Simulations of Helping Babies Breathe: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05257499 (In-person Versus Online Debriefing in the Simulation Sessions of the Helping Babies Breathe Course), which is not on this 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.
In-person Versus Online Debriefing in the Simulation Sessions of the Helping Babies Breathe Course: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBirth asphyxia is a leading cause of neonatal deaths, but simple interventions may prevent it. The Helping Babies Breathe (HBB) course has significantly reduced neonatal mortality rates in lower and middle-income countries (LMICs) by training healthcare providers (i.e. midwives and nurses) on the essential skills of bag-and-mask ventilation and postnatal care. Although several studies have supported the efficacy of virtual learning in other medical education programs, there is still a lack of knowledge regarding a virtual approach to HBB. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of online versus in-person learning of the HBB course among medical and nursing students.
methodsThe study is a two-arm parallel randomized non-inferiority controlled trial, that includes medical and nursing students. Participants were randomly assigned to either online or in-person debriefing during the hands-on simulations of HBB. They attended a pre-recorded lecture before being assigned to one of three instructors for the simulation lab. Participants completed a seven-point anonymous Likert-based questionnaire and a standardized Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare Student Version (DASH-SV) Short Form. The primary outcome was the Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) grade. The trial is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov with the registration number NCT05257499.
results47 participants completed the study, with similar baseline characteristics in each arm (gender, age, and class). The participants in both arms reported high levels of satisfaction and confidence, with no significant difference between the two arms. The DASH score over 7 was also similar in the online arm (6.27±0.26) compared to the in-person arm (6.55±0.13) (p=0.07). The mean OSCE score in the online arm (45.8±5.2) was comparable to the mean OSCE score in the in-person arm (41.3±5.0) (p=0.22). Both online and in-person participants failed the OSCE.
conclusionThe survey responses conveyed that online simulation training is comparable to in-person simulation for the HBB course. Both online and in-person participants failed the OSCE most likely because they needed more training on HBB. This could be due to the fact that the material is too new to the students who needed more practice to pass the OSCE. Further research is needed to confirm these results and explore the long-term impact of online neonatal resuscitation training.
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.