Cheng, Adam

Objectives Debriefing is a common feature of technology‐enhanced simulation ( TES ) education. However, evidence for its effectiveness remains unclear. We sought to characterise how debriefing is reported in the TES literature, identify debriefing features that are associated with improved outcomes, and evaluate the effectiveness of debriefing when combined with TES . Methods We systematically searched databases, including MEDLINE , EMBASE and Scopus, and reviewed previous bibliographies for original comparative studies investigating the use of TES with debriefing in training health care providers. Reviewers, in duplicate, evaluated study quality and abstracted information on instructional design, debriefing and outcomes. Effect sizes ( ES ) were pooled using random‐effects meta‐analysis. Results From 10 903 potentially eligible studies, we identified 177 studies (11 511 learners) that employed debriefing as part of TES . Key characteristics of debriefing (e.g. duration, educator presence and characteristics, content, structure/method, timing, use of video) were usually incompletely reported. A meta‐analysis of four studies demonstrated that video‐assisted debriefing has negligible and non‐significant effects for time skills ( ES = 0.10) compared with non‐video‐assisted debriefing. Meta‐analysis demonstrated non‐significant effects in favour of expert modelling with short debriefing in comparison with long debriefing (ES range = 0.21–0.74). Among studies comparing terminal with concurrent debriefing, results were variable depending on outcome measures and the context of training (e.g. medical resuscitation versus technical skills). Eight additional studies revealed insight into the roles of other debriefing‐related factors (e.g. multimedia debriefing, learner‐led debriefing, debriefing duration, content of debriefing). Among studies that compared simulation plus debriefing with no intervention, pooled ES s were favourable for all outcomes (ES range = 0.28–2.16). Conclusions Limited evidence suggests that video‐assisted debriefing yields outcomes similar to those of non‐video‐assisted debriefing. Other debriefing design features show mixed or non‐significant results. As debriefing characteristics are usually incompletely reported, future debriefing research should describe all the key debriefing characteristics along with their associated descriptors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pediatrics has embraced technology-enhanced 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.