ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Progress in educational theory and translational implementation of simulation-based education for healthcare professionals: an integrative analysis from theory to effectiveness.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To synthesise pedagogical theory and contemporary evidence on simulation-based education (SBE) for healthcare professionals and translate this into practical design, implementation, and governance guidance. Design: Integrative narrative review. Methods: We performed dual-wave systematic literature retrieval across six academic databases (PubMed, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane Library) from 1 January 2019 to 10 October 2025, supplemented by manual reference screening and expert consultation. Two independent reviewers completed title/abstract screening, full-text eligibility assessment, standardized 11-field data extraction and study quality appraisal using five validated risk-of-bias tools (MMAT 2018, SANRA, AGREE II, RoB 2, ROBINS-I). Extracted evidence was synthesized into a four-part analytic framework covering pedagogical foundations, instructional design, multi-level effectiveness evaluation and translational implementation governance. Salient constructs included experiential learning, deliberate practice, simulation-based mastery learning, cognitive load management, psychological safety, and objective-assessment alignment. We prioritized functional and psychological fidelity over high-end visual equipment, standardized structured briefing-simulation-debriefing cycles, and individualized mastery-based learning pacing in our analytical synthesis. Results: Across technical and non-technical domains, SBE improves knowledge, procedural skill, teamwork, and process outcomes; effect size and durability depend on design quality and debriefing. Prioritising functional/psychological fidelity over visual realism, aligning objectives with assessment, using SBML and spaced reinforcement, and embedding structured debriefing are consistent determinants of Conclusions: SBE effectiveness is conditional on alignment of aims, activities, assessment, high-quality debriefings, mastery-based pacing, and psychologically safe climates. Functional and psychological fidelity should supersede device sophistication. Translational approaches position SBE within organisational quality and economic frameworks. Impact: This review offers a practical selection matrix and implementation governance model that assists educators in designing scalable and equitable SBE, supports administrators in resource planning and quality assurance, and guides accreditors in aligning evidence with entrustment and standards.
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.