Cargando…
Distance simulation in the health professions: a scoping review
BACKGROUND: Distance simulation is defined as simulation experiences in which participants and/or facilitators are separated from each other by geographic distance and/or time. The use of distance simulation as an education technique expanded rapidly with the recent COVID-19 pandemic, with a concomi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10656877/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37978416 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41077-023-00266-z |
_version_ | 1785148090581254144 |
---|---|
author | Elkin, Rachel Duff, Jonathan P. LaForest, Marian L. Stapleton, Stephanie Ramachandra, Geethanjali Palaganas, Janice C. Gross, Isabel T. |
author_facet | Elkin, Rachel Duff, Jonathan P. LaForest, Marian L. Stapleton, Stephanie Ramachandra, Geethanjali Palaganas, Janice C. Gross, Isabel T. |
author_sort | Elkin, Rachel |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Distance simulation is defined as simulation experiences in which participants and/or facilitators are separated from each other by geographic distance and/or time. The use of distance simulation as an education technique expanded rapidly with the recent COVID-19 pandemic, with a concomitant increase in scholarly work. METHODS: A scoping review was performed to review and characterize the distance simulation literature. With the assistance of an informationist, the literature was systematically searched. Each abstract was reviewed by two researchers and disagreements were addressed by consensus. Risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred sixty-nine abstracts were screened, ultimately leading to 124 papers in the final dataset for extraction. A variety of simulation modalities, contexts, and distance simulation technologies were identified, with activities covering a range of content areas. Only 72 papers presented outcomes and sufficient detail to be analyzed for risk of bias. Most studies had moderate to high risk of bias, most commonly related to confounding factors, intervention classification, or measurement of outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the papers reviewed during the more than 20-year time period captured in this study presented early work or low-level outcomes. More standardization around reporting is needed to facilitate a clear and shared understanding of future distance simulation research. As the broader simulation community gains more experience with distance simulation, more studies are needed to inform when and how it should be used. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41077-023-00266-z. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10656877 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106568772023-11-17 Distance simulation in the health professions: a scoping review Elkin, Rachel Duff, Jonathan P. LaForest, Marian L. Stapleton, Stephanie Ramachandra, Geethanjali Palaganas, Janice C. Gross, Isabel T. Adv Simul (Lond) Research BACKGROUND: Distance simulation is defined as simulation experiences in which participants and/or facilitators are separated from each other by geographic distance and/or time. The use of distance simulation as an education technique expanded rapidly with the recent COVID-19 pandemic, with a concomitant increase in scholarly work. METHODS: A scoping review was performed to review and characterize the distance simulation literature. With the assistance of an informationist, the literature was systematically searched. Each abstract was reviewed by two researchers and disagreements were addressed by consensus. Risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred sixty-nine abstracts were screened, ultimately leading to 124 papers in the final dataset for extraction. A variety of simulation modalities, contexts, and distance simulation technologies were identified, with activities covering a range of content areas. Only 72 papers presented outcomes and sufficient detail to be analyzed for risk of bias. Most studies had moderate to high risk of bias, most commonly related to confounding factors, intervention classification, or measurement of outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the papers reviewed during the more than 20-year time period captured in this study presented early work or low-level outcomes. More standardization around reporting is needed to facilitate a clear and shared understanding of future distance simulation research. As the broader simulation community gains more experience with distance simulation, more studies are needed to inform when and how it should be used. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41077-023-00266-z. BioMed Central 2023-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC10656877/ /pubmed/37978416 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41077-023-00266-z Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Elkin, Rachel Duff, Jonathan P. LaForest, Marian L. Stapleton, Stephanie Ramachandra, Geethanjali Palaganas, Janice C. Gross, Isabel T. Distance simulation in the health professions: a scoping review |
title | Distance simulation in the health professions: a scoping review |
title_full | Distance simulation in the health professions: a scoping review |
title_fullStr | Distance simulation in the health professions: a scoping review |
title_full_unstemmed | Distance simulation in the health professions: a scoping review |
title_short | Distance simulation in the health professions: a scoping review |
title_sort | distance simulation in the health professions: a scoping review |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10656877/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37978416 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41077-023-00266-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT elkinrachel distancesimulationinthehealthprofessionsascopingreview AT duffjonathanp distancesimulationinthehealthprofessionsascopingreview AT laforestmarianl distancesimulationinthehealthprofessionsascopingreview AT stapletonstephanie distancesimulationinthehealthprofessionsascopingreview AT ramachandrageethanjali distancesimulationinthehealthprofessionsascopingreview AT palaganasjanicec distancesimulationinthehealthprofessionsascopingreview AT grossisabelt distancesimulationinthehealthprofessionsascopingreview |