MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310329737 · doi:10.22037/aaem.v10i1.1739

Game-based vs. Case-based Training for Increasing Knowledge and Behavioral Fluency of Nurse Students Regarding Crisis and Disaster Management; a Quasi-Experimental Study.

2022· article· en· W4310329737 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

VenuePubMed · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsBC Innovation CouncilProcess Simulations Limited (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluencyInternshipEmergency managementMedicinePsychologyMass CasualtyNursingMedical educationClinical psychologyMedical emergencyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Nurses play an active role in disaster response, and the ability of nurses to appropriately apply management principles during large-scale disasters or mass casualty incidents is of critical importance. This study aimed to compare the effect of game-based Training (GBT) and case-based training (CBT) on nursing students' knowledge and behavioral fluency regarding Crisis and Disaster Management. Methods: This is a quasi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest design. Convenience sampling was used to select third-year nursing students who had completed their clinical clerkship at the time of the study (n=60). In the intervention group, disaster-themed games were used, while in the control group, CBT was used. The emergency and crisis management course consisted of this study's theoretical and clinical training phases. After completion of the theoretical phase (five weeks), the practical part (four weeks) is completed as an internship. The data was collected from the disaster Nurses' Knowledge Questionnaire, demographic survey, and measurement checklists for disasters and crises at five stations. Results: GBT students achieved significantly higher knowledge scores than CBT students after training (p< 0.001). CBT and GBT groups had no significant differences in Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE)1 pretest scores. Posttest1-OSCE2 and posttest2-OSCE3 scores showed significant differences after one week (P < 0.001) and one month (P < 0.001). The mean pretest and posttest1 scores were statistically significant in both groups. A comparison of posttest scores between one month after GBT training (69.03 ± 6.09) and one week after it (69.23 ± 6.14) revealed no statistical significance (p = 0.056). Conclusion: Nursing students' knowledge and behavioral fluency regarding crisis management were more effectively improved by using the disaster and crisis game than by using a case-based method.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.324 · 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