C A Dilaveri1, J H Szostek, A T Wang, D A Cook. 1. General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic School of Graduate Medicine, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. dilaveri.christina@mayo.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast and pelvic examinations are challenging intimate examinations. Technology-based simulation may help to overcome these challenges. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of technology-based simulation training for breast and pelvic examination. SEARCH STRATEGY: Our systematic search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, and key journals and review articles; the date of the last search was January 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Original research studies evaluating technology-enhanced simulation of breast and pelvic examination to teach learners, compared with no intervention or with other educational activities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The reviewers evaluated study eligibility and abstracted data on methodological quality, learners, instructional design, and outcomes, and used random-effects models to pool weighted effect sizes. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 11 272 articles were identified for screening, and 22 studies were eligible, enrolling 2036 trainees. In eight studies comparing simulation for breast examination training with no intervention, simulation was associated with a significant improvement in skill, with a pooled effect size of 0.86 (95% CI 0.52-1.19; P < 0.001). Four studies comparing simulation training for pelvic examination with no intervention had a large and significant benefit, with a pooled effect size of 1.18 (95% CI 0.40-1.96; P = 0.003). Among breast examination simulation studies, dynamic models providing feedback were associated with improved outcomes. In pelvic examination simulation studies, the addition of a standardised patient to the simulation model and the use of an electronic model with enhanced feedback improved outcomes. AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with no intervention, breast and pelvic examination simulation training is associated with moderate to large effects for skills outcomes. Enhanced feedback appears to improve learning.
BACKGROUND: Breast and pelvic examinations are challenging intimate examinations. Technology-based simulation may help to overcome these challenges. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of technology-based simulation training for breast and pelvic examination. SEARCH STRATEGY: Our systematic search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, and key journals and review articles; the date of the last search was January 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Original research studies evaluating technology-enhanced simulation of breast and pelvic examination to teach learners, compared with no intervention or with other educational activities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The reviewers evaluated study eligibility and abstracted data on methodological quality, learners, instructional design, and outcomes, and used random-effects models to pool weighted effect sizes. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 11 272 articles were identified for screening, and 22 studies were eligible, enrolling 2036 trainees. In eight studies comparing simulation for breast examination training with no intervention, simulation was associated with a significant improvement in skill, with a pooled effect size of 0.86 (95% CI 0.52-1.19; P < 0.001). Four studies comparing simulation training for pelvic examination with no intervention had a large and significant benefit, with a pooled effect size of 1.18 (95% CI 0.40-1.96; P = 0.003). Among breast examination simulation studies, dynamic models providing feedback were associated with improved outcomes. In pelvic examination simulation studies, the addition of a standardised patient to the simulation model and the use of an electronic model with enhanced feedback improved outcomes. AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with no intervention, breast and pelvic examination simulation training is associated with moderate to large effects for skills outcomes. Enhanced feedback appears to improve learning.
Authors: Adam Cheng; David Kessler; Ralph Mackinnon; Todd P Chang; Vinay M Nadkarni; Elizabeth A Hunt; Jordan Duval-Arnould; Yiqun Lin; David A Cook; Martin Pusic; Joshua Hui; David Moher; Matthias Egger; Marc Auerbach Journal: BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn Date: 2016-07-24
Authors: Mansour A Al Asmri; James Ennis; Robert John Stone; Fernando Bello; M Sayeed Haque; Jim Parle Journal: BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn Date: 2020-08-01
Authors: Matthias Kiesel; Inga Beyers; Adam Kalisz; Achim Wöckel; Anne Quenzer; Tanja Schlaiß; Christine Wulff; Joachim Diessner Journal: 3D Print Med Date: 2022-07-06
Authors: Yan Li; Na Li; Qunying Han; Shuixiang He; Ricard S Bae; Zhengwen Liu; Yi Lv; Bingyin Shi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lorraine Dugoff; Archana Pradhan; Petra Casey; John L Dalrymple; Jodi F Abbott; Samantha D Buery-Joyner; Alice Chuang; Amie J Cullimore; David A Forstein; Brittany S Hampton; Joseph M Kaczmarczyk; Nadine T Katz; Francis S Nuthalapaty; Sarah M Page-Ramsey; Abigail Wolf; Nancy A Hueppchen Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Hamza Mohammad Abdulghani; Shafiul Haque; Mohammad Irshad; Noor Al-Zahrani; Eman Al-Bedaie; Latifah Al-Fahad; Manar Al-Eid; Abdulrahman Al-Mohaimeed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.889