Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Objectives Debriefing is a common feature of technology‐enhanced simulation (TES) education. However, evidence for its effectiveness remains unclear. We sought to characterise how debriefing is reported in the TES literature, identify debriefing features that are associated with improved outcomes, a...
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | Medical education Ročník 48; číslo 7; s. 657 - 666 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autoři: | , , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Vydáno: |
England
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
01.07.2014
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
| Témata: | |
| ISSN: | 0308-0110, 1365-2923, 1365-2923 |
| On-line přístup: | Získat plný text |
| Tagy: |
Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
|
| Shrnutí: | Objectives
Debriefing is a common feature of technology‐enhanced simulation (TES) education. However, evidence for its effectiveness remains unclear. We sought to characterise how debriefing is reported in the TES literature, identify debriefing features that are associated with improved outcomes, and evaluate the effectiveness of debriefing when combined with TES.
Methods
We systematically searched databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus, and reviewed previous bibliographies for original comparative studies investigating the use of TES with debriefing in training health care providers. Reviewers, in duplicate, evaluated study quality and ed information on instructional design, debriefing and outcomes. Effect sizes (ES) were pooled using random‐effects meta‐analysis.
Results
From 10 903 potentially eligible studies, we identified 177 studies (11 511 learners) that employed debriefing as part of TES. Key characteristics of debriefing (e.g. duration, educator presence and characteristics, content, structure/method, timing, use of video) were usually incompletely reported. A meta‐analysis of four studies demonstrated that video‐assisted debriefing has negligible and non‐significant effects for time skills (ES = 0.10) compared with non‐video‐assisted debriefing. Meta‐analysis demonstrated non‐significant effects in favour of expert modelling with short debriefing in comparison with long debriefing (ES range = 0.21–0.74). Among studies comparing terminal with concurrent debriefing, results were variable depending on outcome measures and the context of training (e.g. medical resuscitation versus technical skills). Eight additional studies revealed insight into the roles of other debriefing‐related factors (e.g. multimedia debriefing, learner‐led debriefing, debriefing duration, content of debriefing). Among studies that compared simulation plus debriefing with no intervention, pooled ESs were favourable for all outcomes (ES range = 0.28–2.16).
Conclusions
Limited evidence suggests that video‐assisted debriefing yields outcomes similar to those of non‐video‐assisted debriefing. Other debriefing design features show mixed or non‐significant results. As debriefing characteristics are usually incompletely reported, future debriefing research should describe all the key debriefing characteristics along with their associated descriptors.
Discuss ideas arising from the article at ‘discuss’ |
|---|---|
| Bibliografie: | ArticleID:MEDU12432 Appendix S1. List of all included studies.Figure S1. Study flow diagram. Figure S2. Random-effects meta-analysis of studies comparing simulation training plus debriefing with no intervention: knowledge, time, process skill, products skill, learner behaviour and patient outcomes. Table S1. Description of included studies. Table S2. Quality of included studies. Table S3. Random-effects meta-analysis of simulation training with debriefing: knowledge outcomes. Table S4. Random-effects meta-analysis of simulation training with debriefing: process skill outcomes. Table S5. Random-effects meta-analysis of studies comparing simulation-based training plus debriefing with non-simulation instruction: satisfaction, knowledge, time, process skill and product skill outcomes. ark:/67375/WNG-W96GQ0LS-R istex:768E61E8AB5242F9E508C568C412E5731E8FEADF Mayo Clinic Division of General Internal Medicine ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 14 ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-4 |
| ISSN: | 0308-0110 1365-2923 1365-2923 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/medu.12432 |