MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138494011 · doi:10.1155/2021/6695077

Comparative Effectiveness of Simulation versus Serious Game for Training Nursing Students in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Control Trial

2021· article· en· W3138494011 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computer Games Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAja University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsCardiopulmonary resuscitationSerious gameRandomized controlled trialMedicineNursingResuscitationSimulation trainingTraining (meteorology)PsychologyEmergency medicineSimulationComputer scienceInternal medicineMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. The proper implementation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is crucial in saving patients. Purpose. This study was aimed at evaluating the difference in educating nursing students on CPR when using the traditional simulation training with a mannequin versus a more novel serious game training on the smartphone platform. Methods. This randomized control trial was conducted in 2018-2019. Through purposive sampling, 56 nursing students were selected and randomly assigned to three groups: a simulation-based CPR training, CPR training using a serious game on the smartphone platform, and a control group that received no CPR training. Each student was evaluated pre- and posttraining on CPR knowledge and skill. Results. Both the simulation and serious game training groups increased CPR abilities two weeks after training. The control group did not show improvement in skill or knowledge of CPR. The simulation and serious game intervention groups demonstrated better scores on the knowledge questionnaire and on the CPR skill demonstration in comparison to the control group. However, the simulation group and the serious game group showed no significant difference in knowledge ( <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mn>9.55</a:mn> <a:mo>±</a:mo> <a:mn>2.81</a:mn> </a:math> vs. <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mn>7.77</c:mn> <c:mo>±</c:mo> <c:mn>2.46</c:mn> </c:math> ; <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>p</e:mi> <e:mo>=</e:mo> <e:mn>0.065</e:mn> </e:math> ) or CPR skill demonstration ( <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mn>27.17</g:mn> <g:mo>±</g:mo> <g:mn>2.81</g:mn> </g:math> vs. <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"> <i:mn>25.72</i:mn> <i:mo>±</i:mo> <i:mn>3.98</i:mn> </i:math> ; <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"> <k:mi>p</k:mi> <k:mo>=</k:mo> <k:mn>0.988</k:mn> </k:math> ). The overall scores for CPR knowledge did not meet minimum expectations (70% score) in either the simulation (47.75%) or serious game (38.85%) group. However, both groups demonstrated adequate CPR skill on demonstration (simulation 87.64% and serious game 83.06%). Conclusions. Both the simulation and serious game training groups were found to increase CPR skill. CPR training would likely benefit from a multimodal approach to education.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.393 · 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