Physical Realism of Simulation Training for Health Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries-A Systematic Review.
Journal
Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare
ISSN: 1559-713X
Titre abrégé: Simul Healthc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101264408
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jan 2024
01 Jan 2024
Historique:
medline:
19
1
2024
pubmed:
19
1
2024
entrez:
19
1
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This systematic review was conducted, according to PRISMA standards, to examine the impact of the level of physical realism of simulation training on clinical, educational, and procedural outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) as defined by the World Bank. A search from January 1, 2011 to January 24, 2023 identified 2311 studies that met the inclusion criteria including 9 randomized (n = 627) and 2 case-controlled studies (n = 159). Due to the high risk of bias and inconsistency, the certainty of evidence was very low, and heterogeneity prevented any metaanalysis. We observed limited evidence for desirable effects in participant satisfaction and confidence, but no significant difference in skills acquisition and performance in the clinical practice environment. When considering the equivocal evidence and cost implications, we recommend the use of lower physical realism simulation training in LMIC settings. It is important to standardize outcomes and conduct more studies in lower income settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38240617
doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000761
pii: 01266021-202401001-00005
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
S41-S49Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Society for Simulation in Healthcare.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
This systematic review was part of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare guideline development process. A.L. is president of Resuscitation Council UK and a member of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Education, Implementation and Teams task force. A.D. is a member of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Education, Implementation and Teams task force. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Cheng A, Lang TR, Starr SR, Pusic M, Cook DA. Technology-enhanced simulation and pediatric education: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2014;133(5):e1313–e1323.
Aggarwal R, Mytton OT, Derbrew M, et al. Training and simulation for patient safety. BMJ Qual Saf 2010;19(Suppl 2):i34–i43.
Lioce L, Loprieato J, Downing D, et al; the Terminology and Concepts Working Group. Healthcare Simulation Dictionary (2nd Ed). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2020.
La Cerra C, Dante A, Caponnetto V, et al. Effects of high-fidelity simulation based on life-threatening clinical condition scenarios on learning outcomes of undergraduate and postgraduate nursing students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2019;9(2):e025306.
Fantom NJ, Serajuddin U. The World Bank's classification of countries by income. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2016;7528.
Puri L, Das J, Pai M, et al. Enhancing quality of medical care in low income and middle income countries through simulation-based initiatives: recommendations of the Simnovate Global Health Domain Group. BMJ Stel 2017;3:S15–S22.
Campain NJ, Kailavasan M, Chalwe M, et al. An evaluation of the role of simulation training for teaching surgical skills in sub-Saharan Africa. World J Surg 2018;42:923–929.
Qayumi K, Pachev G, Zheng B, et al. Status of simulation in health care education: an international survey. Adv Med Educ Pract 2014;5:457–467.
Lefor AK, Harada K, Kawahira H, Mitsuishi M. The effect of simulator fidelity on procedure skill training: a literature review. Int J Med Educ 2020;11:97–106.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2021;10(1):89.
Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995;123(3):A12–A13.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898.
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919.
Schünemann H. The GRADE Handbook. Cochrane Collaboration; 2013.
Akdemir A, Şendağ F, Öztekin MK. Laparoscopic virtual reality simulator and box trainer in gynecology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014;125(2):181–185.
Amanak K. Comparing low fidelity simulation/model and hybrid simulation techniques for teaching how to perform intramuscular injections: a case control study. J Pak Med Assoc 2020;70(10):1698–1705.
Denadai R, Oshiiwa M, Saad-Hossne R. Does bench model fidelity interfere in the acquisition of suture skills by novice medical students? Rev Assoc Med Bras 2012;58:600–606.
Denadai R, Oshiiwa M, Saad-Hossne R. Teaching elliptical excision skills to novice medical students: a randomized controlled study comparing low-and high-fidelity bench models. Indian J Dermatol 2014;59(2):169–175.
Denadai R, Saad-Hossne R, Raposo-Amaral CE. Simulation-based rhomboid flap skills training during medical education: comparing low-and high-fidelity bench models. J Craniofac Surg 2014;25(6):2134–2138.
Garcia DFV, Domingues CA, Collet E Silva FS, et al. Efficacy of a novel surgical manikin for simulating emergency surgical procedures. Am Surg 2019;85(12):1318–1326.
Jiang B, Ju H, Zhao Y, Yao L, Feng Y. Comparison of the efficacy and efficiency of the use of virtual reality simulation with high-fidelity mannequins for simulation-based training of fiberoptic bronchoscope manipulation. Simul Healthc 2018;13(2):83–87.
Labuschagne MJ, Arbee A, de Klerk C, et al. A comparison of the effectiveness of QCPR and conventional CPR training in final-year medical students at a South African university. Afr J Emerg Med 2022;12(2):106–111.
Murthy SS, Ntakiyiruta G, Ntirenganya F, et al. A randomized cross-over trial focused on clinical breast exam skill acquisition using high fidelity versus low fidelity simulation models in Rwanda. J Surg Educ 2020;77(5):1161–1168.
Rishipathak P, Hinduja A, Sengupta N. A comparative analysis of self-efficacy in low fidelity vs high fidelity simulation post advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) sessions on cardiac arrest algorithm amongst EMS students of Pune, India. Indian J Public Health Res Dev 2020;11:415–419.
Wang AL, Fitzpatrick JJ, Petrini MA. Comparison of two simulation methods on Chinese BSN students' learning. Clin Simul Nurs 2013;9(6):e207–e212.
Ayaz O, Ismail FW. Healthcare simulation: a key to the future of medical education—a review. Adv Med Educ Pract 2022;13:301–308.
Yin Mar O, Nataraja RM. The application of simulation-based medical education in low- and middle-income countries; the Myanmar experience. Semin Pediatr Surg 2020;29(2):150910.
Kruk ME, Gage AD, Arsenault C, et al. High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution. Lancet Glob Health 2018;6(11):e1196–e1252.
Najjuma JN, Bajunirwe F, Twine M, et al. Stakeholder perceptions about the establishment of medical simulation-based learning at a university in a low resource setting: a qualitative study in Uganda. BMC Med Educ 2020;20(1):379.