Simulation in psychiatry for medical doctors: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context Most medical doctors are likely to work with patients experiencing mental health conditions. However, educational opportunities for medical doctors to achieve professional development in the field of psychiatry are often limited. Simulation training in psychiatry may be a useful tool to foster this development. Objectives The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatry for medical students, postgraduate trainees and medical doctors. Methods For this systematic review and meta‐analysis, we searched eight electronic databases and trial registries up to 31 August 2018. We manually searched key journals and the reference lists of selected studies. We included randomised and non‐randomised controlled studies and single group pre‐ and post‐test studies. Our main outcomes were based on Kirkpatrick levels. We included data only from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using random‐effects models. Results From 46 571 studies identified, we selected 163 studies and combined 27 RCTs. Interventions included simulation by role‐play (n = 69), simulated patients (n = 72), virtual reality (n = 22), manikin (n = 5) and voice simulation (n = 2). Meta‐analysis found significant differences at immediate post‐tests for simulation compared with active and inactive control groups for attitudes (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31‐0.73 [ I 2 = 0.0%] and SMD = 0.28, 95% CI 0.04‐0.53 [ I 2 = 52.0%], respectively), skills (SMD = 1.37, 95% CI 0.56‐2.18 [ I 2 = 93.0%] and SMD = 1.49, 95% CI 0.39‐2.58 [ I 2 = 93.0%], respectively), knowledge (SMD = 1.22, 95% CI 0.57‐1.88 [ I 2 = 0.0%] and SMD = 0.72, 95% CI 0.14‐1.30 [ I 2 = 80.0%], respectively), and behaviours (SMD = 1.07, 95% CI 0.49‐1.65 [ I 2 = 68.0%] and SMD = 0.45, 95% CI 0.11‐0.79 [ I 2 = 41.0%], respectively). Significant differences in terms of patient benefit and doctors’ behaviours and skills were found at the 3‐month follow‐up. Conclusions Despite heterogeneity in methods and simulation interventions, our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatry training.
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 | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".