The Impact of Just-in-Time Simulation Training for Healthcare Professionals on Learning and Performance Outcomes: A Systematic Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Although just-in-time training (JIT) is increasingly used in simulation-based health professions education, its impact on learning, performance, and patient outcomes remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine whether JIT simulation training leads to improved learning and performance outcomes. We included randomized or nonrandomized interventional studies assessing the impact of JIT simulation training (training conducted in temporal or spatial proximity to performance) on learning outcomes among health professionals (trainees or practitioners). Of 4077 citations screened, 28 studies were eligible for inclusion. Just-in-time training simulation training has been evaluated for a variety of medical, resuscitation, and surgical procedures. Most JIT simulation training occurred immediately before procedures and lasted between 5 and 30 minutes. Despite the very low certainty of evidence, this systematic review suggests JIT simulation training can improve learning and performance outcomes, in particular time to complete skills. There remains limited data on better patient outcomes and collateral educational effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it