SynthesisJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2026
The impact of the learner role in healthcare simulation-based education on learning outcomes: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis review examined the impact of learner role-active participant versus observer-on learning outcomes in healthcare simulation-based education using Kirkpatrick's evaluation model.
methodsFive databases-PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost-were searched for studies published from January 2018 to November 2024. Eligibility criteria, defined using the PICOS framework, targeted studies comparing learning outcomes between active participant and observer roles among health professions students and practitioners. Methodological quality was appraised using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument, and findings were synthesized narratively. This review was registered in PROSPERO under registration number CRD42024611988.
resultsOf 648 records, 15 studies involving 1,799 participants met the inclusion criteria; role allocation was specifically reported for 644 active participants and 709 observers. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (13/15) and nursing programs (11/15). At Kirkpatrick Level 1, most studies reported no statistically significant between-role differences, although an active participant advantage emerged for emotional arousal. At Level 2, knowledge, skills, and most attitudinal outcomes did not differ significantly between roles; active participant advantages were observed for technical skills at delayed follow-up, affective competencies in palliative care, and perceived learning transfer. No study assessed Levels 3 or 4.
conclusionMost studies found no significant differences between observer and active participant roles at Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and 2. Generalizability across all health professions and settings is limited. Pedagogically appropriate use of the observer role supports learning outcomes and may expand access to simulation-based education.
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.