ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2025
Exploring the role of self-led debriefings within simulation-based education: time to challenge the status quo?
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 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.
- AI integration in healthcare simulation debriefing: support or substitute?Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Article
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
backgroundThe notion that debriefing quality is highly reliant on the skills and expertise of the facilitator is being increasingly challenged. There is therefore emerging interest in self-led debriefings (SLDs), whereby following a simulated learning event, individuals or groups of learners conduct a debriefing amongst themselves, without the immediate presence of a trained facilitator. The interest in this approach to debriefing is multifactorial but is, in part, driven by a desire to reduce costs associated with resource-intensive faculty presence. The debate regarding the role of SLDs in simulation-based education (SBE) therefore has important implications for the simulation community. MAIN BODY: We comprehensively explore the role of SLDs by contextualising their application across the spectrum of SBE, both in terms of contrasting simulation factors, namely (i) simulation modality, (ii) debriefing forum, and (iii) debriefing adjuncts, as well as different learner characteristics, namely (i) learners' previous simulation experience, (ii) learner numbers, and (iii) learners' professional and cultural backgrounds. These factors inherently shape the conduct and format of SLDs, and thus impact their effectiveness in influencing learning. We have synthesised and critically analysed the available literature to illuminate this discussion.
conclusionsThe current evidence suggests that SLDs can, in the right circumstances, form part of an effective debriefing strategy and support learners to reach appropriate levels of critical self-reflection and learning. Careful consideration and due diligence must go into the design and implementation of SLDs to augment the advantages of this debriefing format, such as enhancing flexibility and learner autonomy, whilst mitigating potential risks, such as reinforcing errors and biases or causing psychological harm. In situations where resources for facilitator-led debriefings (FLDs) are limited, simulation educators should recognise SLDs as a potential avenue to explore in their local contexts. By leveraging the strengths of both formats, balancing learner autonomy and expert guidance, a combined SLD and FLD approach may yet prove to be the optimal debriefing strategy to maximise learning. Whilst more research is needed to deepen our understanding of the nuances of SLDs to assess their true applicability across the spectrum of SBE, the time may now have arrived to consider challenging the status quo.
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.