Simulation and mental health outcomes: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A scoping review was conducted in order to map and determine the gaps in literature on the impact of simulation as an educational approach to improve mental health care outcomes. As it became apparent that no literature existed on this topic, the study aimed to examine the educational impact of simulation on mental health education. METHODS: An established five-stage scoping methodology was used: (1) identification of the research question, (2) identification of relevant studies, (3) study selection, (4) charting the data and (5) collation, summarising and reporting of results. CINAHL, ProQuest, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsychINFO databases were searched. These databases were deemed to represent a majority of the literature while accommodating for the particular search strategy used for this review. Websites that provide grey literature were also searched for articles of relevance. RESULTS: A total of 48 articles were included in this review, with a considerable portion of studies conducted in the USA and UK. Others were conducted in an array of locations including Australia, Canada, Iran and Taiwan. Of the included articles, seven groups of simulation methods (including standardised patients, virtual reality and manikins as patients) were evident, with standardised patients being most prominent. CONCLUSIONS: Literature is lacking to evidence the benefit of simulation on mental health patient outcomes. However, the available literature suggests a variety of simulation-based education, and training methods are currently being used within mental healthcare education. The findings do suggest some methods of simulation, such as the use of standardised patients, are more commonly used in education and have been deemed as effective to assist in mental health education. As no article specifically examining the mental health outcomes of patients treated by health professionals taught by simulation was identified, the educational outcomes outlined in this paper may be used to inform further research, incorporating mental health patient outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".