Technology-enhanced simulation and pediatric education: A meta-analysis

Adam Cheng, Tara R. Lang, Stephanie R. Starr, Martin Pusic, David Allan Cook

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

70 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pediatrics has embraced technologyenhanced simulation (TES) as an educational modality, but its effectiveness for pediatric education remains unclear. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics and evaluate the effectiveness of TES for pediatric education. METHODS: This review adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011 and an updated Medline search through October 2013 were conducted. Original research articles in any language evaluating the use of TES for educating health care providers at any stage, where the content solely focuses on patients 18 years or younger, were selected. Reviewers working in duplicate abstracted information on learners, clinical topic, instructional design, study quality, and outcomes. We coded skills (simulated setting) separately for time and nontime measures and similarly classified patient care behaviors and patient effects. RESULTS: We identified 57 studies (3666 learners) using TES to teach pediatrics. Effect sizes (ESs) were pooled by using a random-effects model. Among studies comparing TES with no intervention, pooled ESs were large for outcomes of knowledge, nontime skills (eg, performance in simulated setting), behaviors with patients, and time to task completion (ES = 0.80-1.91). Studies comparing the use of high versus low physical realism simulators showed small to moderate effects favoring high physical realism (ES = 0.31-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: TES for pediatric education is associated with large ESs in comparison with no intervention. Future research should include comparative studies that identify optimal instructional methods and incorporate pediatric-specific issues into educational interventions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalPediatrics
Volume133
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Pediatrics
Technology
Education
Bibliography
Health Personnel
Meta-analysis
Simulation
Patient Care
Language
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Effect Size
Research
Realism
Physical

Keywords

  • Education
  • Pediatric
  • Simulation
  • Systematic review
  • Technology-enhanced

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Technology-enhanced simulation and pediatric education : A meta-analysis. / Cheng, Adam; Lang, Tara R.; Starr, Stephanie R.; Pusic, Martin; Cook, David Allan.

In: Pediatrics, Vol. 133, No. 5, 2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cheng, Adam ; Lang, Tara R. ; Starr, Stephanie R. ; Pusic, Martin ; Cook, David Allan. / Technology-enhanced simulation and pediatric education : A meta-analysis. In: Pediatrics. 2014 ; Vol. 133, No. 5.
@article{dff64e21816b4106b7d91f6b79d1c881,
title = "Technology-enhanced simulation and pediatric education: A meta-analysis",
abstract = "BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pediatrics has embraced technologyenhanced simulation (TES) as an educational modality, but its effectiveness for pediatric education remains unclear. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics and evaluate the effectiveness of TES for pediatric education. METHODS: This review adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011 and an updated Medline search through October 2013 were conducted. Original research articles in any language evaluating the use of TES for educating health care providers at any stage, where the content solely focuses on patients 18 years or younger, were selected. Reviewers working in duplicate abstracted information on learners, clinical topic, instructional design, study quality, and outcomes. We coded skills (simulated setting) separately for time and nontime measures and similarly classified patient care behaviors and patient effects. RESULTS: We identified 57 studies (3666 learners) using TES to teach pediatrics. Effect sizes (ESs) were pooled by using a random-effects model. Among studies comparing TES with no intervention, pooled ESs were large for outcomes of knowledge, nontime skills (eg, performance in simulated setting), behaviors with patients, and time to task completion (ES = 0.80-1.91). Studies comparing the use of high versus low physical realism simulators showed small to moderate effects favoring high physical realism (ES = 0.31-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: TES for pediatric education is associated with large ESs in comparison with no intervention. Future research should include comparative studies that identify optimal instructional methods and incorporate pediatric-specific issues into educational interventions.",
keywords = "Education, Pediatric, Simulation, Systematic review, Technology-enhanced",
author = "Adam Cheng and Lang, {Tara R.} and Starr, {Stephanie R.} and Martin Pusic and Cook, {David Allan}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1542/peds.2013-2139",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "133",
journal = "Pediatrics",
issn = "0031-4005",
publisher = "American Academy of Pediatrics",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Technology-enhanced simulation and pediatric education

T2 - A meta-analysis

AU - Cheng, Adam

AU - Lang, Tara R.

AU - Starr, Stephanie R.

AU - Pusic, Martin

AU - Cook, David Allan

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pediatrics has embraced technologyenhanced simulation (TES) as an educational modality, but its effectiveness for pediatric education remains unclear. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics and evaluate the effectiveness of TES for pediatric education. METHODS: This review adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011 and an updated Medline search through October 2013 were conducted. Original research articles in any language evaluating the use of TES for educating health care providers at any stage, where the content solely focuses on patients 18 years or younger, were selected. Reviewers working in duplicate abstracted information on learners, clinical topic, instructional design, study quality, and outcomes. We coded skills (simulated setting) separately for time and nontime measures and similarly classified patient care behaviors and patient effects. RESULTS: We identified 57 studies (3666 learners) using TES to teach pediatrics. Effect sizes (ESs) were pooled by using a random-effects model. Among studies comparing TES with no intervention, pooled ESs were large for outcomes of knowledge, nontime skills (eg, performance in simulated setting), behaviors with patients, and time to task completion (ES = 0.80-1.91). Studies comparing the use of high versus low physical realism simulators showed small to moderate effects favoring high physical realism (ES = 0.31-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: TES for pediatric education is associated with large ESs in comparison with no intervention. Future research should include comparative studies that identify optimal instructional methods and incorporate pediatric-specific issues into educational interventions.

AB - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pediatrics has embraced technologyenhanced simulation (TES) as an educational modality, but its effectiveness for pediatric education remains unclear. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics and evaluate the effectiveness of TES for pediatric education. METHODS: This review adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011 and an updated Medline search through October 2013 were conducted. Original research articles in any language evaluating the use of TES for educating health care providers at any stage, where the content solely focuses on patients 18 years or younger, were selected. Reviewers working in duplicate abstracted information on learners, clinical topic, instructional design, study quality, and outcomes. We coded skills (simulated setting) separately for time and nontime measures and similarly classified patient care behaviors and patient effects. RESULTS: We identified 57 studies (3666 learners) using TES to teach pediatrics. Effect sizes (ESs) were pooled by using a random-effects model. Among studies comparing TES with no intervention, pooled ESs were large for outcomes of knowledge, nontime skills (eg, performance in simulated setting), behaviors with patients, and time to task completion (ES = 0.80-1.91). Studies comparing the use of high versus low physical realism simulators showed small to moderate effects favoring high physical realism (ES = 0.31-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: TES for pediatric education is associated with large ESs in comparison with no intervention. Future research should include comparative studies that identify optimal instructional methods and incorporate pediatric-specific issues into educational interventions.

KW - Education

KW - Pediatric

KW - Simulation

KW - Systematic review

KW - Technology-enhanced

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84899891012&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84899891012&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1542/peds.2013-2139

DO - 10.1542/peds.2013-2139

M3 - Article

C2 - 24733867

AN - SCOPUS:84899891012

VL - 133

JO - Pediatrics

JF - Pediatrics

SN - 0031-4005

IS - 5

ER -