MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047370224 · doi:10.2196/21123

Lessons Learned From an Evaluation of Serious Gaming as an Alternative to Mannequin-Based Simulation Technology: Randomized Controlled Trial

2020· article· en· W3047370224 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Natalie C. Benda, Kathryn M. Kellogg, Daniel Hoffman, Rollin J. Fairbanks, Tamika Auguste

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsPerceptionComputer scienceFocus groupMedical educationApplied psychologyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The use of new technology like virtual reality, e-learning, and serious gaming can offer novel, more accessible options that have been demonstrated to improve learning outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the educational effectiveness of serious game-based simulation training to traditional mannequin-based simulation training and to determine the perceptions of physicians and nurses. We used an obstetric use case, namely electronic fetal monitoring interpretation and decision making, for our assessment. METHODS: This study utilized a mixed methods approach to evaluate the effectiveness of the new, serious game-based training method and assess participants' perceptions of the training. Participants were randomized to traditional simulation training in a center with mannequins or serious game training. They then participated in an obstetrical in-situ simulation scenario to assess their learning. Participants also completed a posttraining perceptions questionnaire. RESULTS: The primary outcome measure for this study was the participants' performance in an in-situ mannequin-based simulation scenario, which occurred posttraining following a washout period. No significant statistical differences were detected between the mannequin-based and serious game-based groups in overall performance, although the study was not sufficiently powered to conclude noninferiority. The survey questions were tested for significant differences in participant perceptions of the educational method, but none were found. Qualitative participant feedback revealed important areas for improvement, with a focus on game realism. CONCLUSIONS: The serious game training tool developed has potential utility in providing education to those without access to large simulation centers; however, further validation is needed to demonstrate if this tool is as effective as mannequin-based simulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207