ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2025
Evaluating a simulation-based interprofessional education activity on disaster preparedness and management among health professions students.
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. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSimulation-based education offers a risk-free platform to prepare future health professionals for interprofessional collaboration during high-stakes emergencies. This study involved the design, implementation, and evaluation of a disaster-focused simulation to enhance interprofessional competencies among health professions students.
methodsAn interprofessional education (IPE) simulation covering the four disaster preparedness and management phases (mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery) was conducted for undergraduate health professions students. Students, assessors, and standardized patients (SPs) participated in the evaluation. Data on interprofessional competencies were collected from students using the Team's Perception of Collaborative Care Questionnaire, from assessors using the Modified McMaster-Ottawa Scale, and from SPs using the Standardized Patient Team Evaluation Instrument. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize study variables. Paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare score differences between assessors. Learning curve across cases were tested using one-way repeated measures ANOVA, and associations between global scores and demographic variables were analyzed using t-test or ANOVA, as appropriate.
resultsThirty-three students, 13 assessors, and 8 SPs participated in the evaluation. response rates were 33.3% (students), 92.9% (assessors), and 100% (SPs). Students self-reported positive perceptions of teamwork in the activity, with over 90% agreement across all domains. Assessors' ratings for the response phase corroborated these findings, with over 80% of students scoring at or above expectations in all domains. SPs' evaluations were also high, with 70% agreeing that students demonstrated positive interprofessional practice behaviors. For the diabetic ketoacidosis case, teams' global performance scores were calculated as the mean of the two assessors' ratings. Students with prior IPE experience (M = 2.42, 95% CI: 2.24-2.60) and those who had completed a prior practice placement (M = 2.48, 95% CI: 2.30-2.65) performed significantly better than students without IPE experience (M = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.80-2.33) or a prior practice placement (M = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.86-2.37). While not statistically significant, a trend towards improved performance across cases in the response phase suggested a learning curve effect.
conclusionsSimulation-based IPE can strengthen interprofessional competencies for disaster preparedness and management, with greatest benefit when preceded by other IPE activities and clinical placements.
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.