ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2026
Conceptions of human factors in simulation-based education: a phenomenographic study.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman factors (HF) are integral to patient safety. Simulation-based education (SBE) is widely used to teach HF, yet facilitators conceptualise HF in varied ways. This study explored facilitators' conceptions of HF. METHODOLOGY AND
methodsA qualitative phenomenographic study was conducted with 12 SBE facilitators from diverse professional backgrounds. Purposive maximum-variation sampling sought participants from different professions, simulation roles, and educational contexts. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams, transcribed verbatim, and analysed iteratively to identify categories of description and an outcome space capturing qualitatively different conceptions.
resultsFour conceptions of HF were identified: (1) HF as a patient-safety science, (2) HF as human-to-human interactions, (3) HF as optimisation of individual performance, and (4) HF as reducing error ('To Err is Human'). Participants sometimes drew on more than one conception, but usually foregrounded one dominant way of understanding HF. The conceptions differed in scope and alignment with HF theory rather than in simple legitimacy. Dimensions influencing conceptions included professional experience, simulation pedagogy, continuous professional development, and approaches to measuring educational quality. DISCUSSION: SBE facilitators hold heterogeneous conceptions of HF, risking inconsistent educational practice. In phenomenographic terms, broader conceptions encompassed aspects visible in narrower ones; this should not be read as a claim that one conception is always the 'best' for every simulation objective. Rather, different educational aims may legitimately foreground different aspects of HF, while systems-informed conceptions align more fully with contemporary HF science. Clearer definitions, stronger faculty development, and closer collaboration between simulation educators and HF specialists may enhance educational design and patient-safety outcomes.
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.