ArticleAnaesthesia2025
Assessing healthcare simulation facilitation using a competency-based tool derived from practice in low-resource settings.
Article in Anaesthesia, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe worldwide expansion in healthcare simulation training includes accelerated uptake in low-resource settings. Until recently, no framework has specifically delineated the competencies underpinning effective facilitation practice in low-resource settings. We describe the development of the Facilitation Behavioural Assessment Tool for simulation facilitation training and report reliability in scoring facilitation performance. This tool was informed by healthcare simulation facilitation practice in low-resource settings.
methodsThe tool has 32 facilitation competencies, organised across three performance categories (techniques, artistry and values) and a three-point scale is used for scoring. Following a short, self-directed online training module, participants scored three videos that depicted facilitation performance at three levels. Videos were presented in a random order. Intraclass correlations and internal consistency with Cronbach's α were calculated. A random intercepts 3 × 3 linear mixed model assessed discrimination across the three levels of facilitation performance and the influence of previous facilitation on scoring.
resultsIn total, 104 participants from 29 countries completed rater training and scored at least one video. The inter-rater reliability was 0.73 (95%CI 0.66-0.79) and 0.89 (95%CI 0.85-0.92) for the intraclass correlation coefficient 2 and intraclass correlation coefficient 2k, respectively. Cronbach's α was 0.84 (95%CI 0.79-0.89) for the positive video; 0.84 (95%CI 0.78-0.88) for the mixed video; and 0.91(95%CI 0.87-0.93) for the negative video. Previous simulation facilitation experience did not affect the ability to distinguish between the videos meaningfully, but novice facilitators scored facilitation behaviours higher for mixed and negative videos compared with participants with intermediate and high levels of experience. DISCUSSION: Our study shows that suitable reliability and internal consistency can be achieved when using the Facilitation Behavioural Assessment Tool. We recommend using the tool to support learning conversations for simulation faculty development in low-resource settings.
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.