Katie A Haerling1. 1. From the Nursing and Healthcare Leadership, University of Washington, Tacoma WA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to (1) compare learning outcomes between students who participated in mannequin-based simulation activities and students who participated in virtual simulation activities and (2) describe a cost-utility analysis comparing the two types of simulation activities in terms of costs and multiple measures of effectiveness. METHODS:Nursing student participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups to complete either a mannequin-based or virtual simulation activity. The simulation scenario was the same for both groups and involved the care of a hospitalized patient experiencing a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation. Participants completed presimulation and postsimulation assessments reflecting qualitative and quantitative measures of learning. A random sample of participants from each group completed a postsimulation performance assessment during which they interacted one on one with a standardized patient. RESULTS:Eighty-four nursing students were enrolled in the study and completed the simulation activities. There were no significant differences in quantitative measures of learning or performance between participants in the mannequin-based and virtual simulation groups. Participants' qualitative responses to postintervention written reflections and questions yielded additional data for describing learning from the two interventions. In the cost-utility analysis, the virtual simulation activity had a more favorable cost-utility ratio of US $1.08 versus the mannequin-based simulation activity's US $3.62. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare educators striving to make evidence-based decisions about how to best employ simulation pedagogy may consider these findings about the cost utility of various simulation modalities. However, additional research is needed.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to (1) compare learning outcomes between students who participated in mannequin-based simulation activities and students who participated in virtual simulation activities and (2) describe a cost-utility analysis comparing the two types of simulation activities in terms of costs and multiple measures of effectiveness. METHODS: Nursing student participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups to complete either a mannequin-based or virtual simulation activity. The simulation scenario was the same for both groups and involved the care of a hospitalized patient experiencing a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation. Participants completed presimulation and postsimulation assessments reflecting qualitative and quantitative measures of learning. A random sample of participants from each group completed a postsimulation performance assessment during which they interacted one on one with a standardized patient. RESULTS: Eighty-four nursing students were enrolled in the study and completed the simulation activities. There were no significant differences in quantitative measures of learning or performance between participants in the mannequin-based and virtual simulation groups. Participants' qualitative responses to postintervention written reflections and questions yielded additional data for describing learning from the two interventions. In the cost-utility analysis, the virtual simulation activity had a more favorable cost-utility ratio of US $1.08 versus the mannequin-based simulation activity's US $3.62. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare educators striving to make evidence-based decisions about how to best employ simulation pedagogy may consider these findings about the cost utility of various simulation modalities. However, additional research is needed.
Authors: André Mestre; Marek Muster; Ahmed Rhassane El Adib; Hugrun Ösp Egilsdottir; Kirsten Røland Byermoen; Miguel Padilha; Thania Aguilar; Nino Tabagari; Lorraine Betts; Leila Sales; Pedro Garcia; Luo Ling; Hugo Café; Alexandra Binnie; Ana Marreiros Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 3.263
Authors: Feng-Qin Chen; Yu-Fei Leng; Jian-Feng Ge; Dan-Wen Wang; Cheng Li; Bin Chen; Zhi-Ling Sun Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Bradford H Ralston; Renee C Willett; Srihari Namperumal; Nina M Brown; Heather Walsh; Ricardo A Muñoz; Sylvia Del Castillo; Todd P Chang; Gregory K Yurasek Journal: Cureus Date: 2021-06-23