Are serious games seriously good at preparing students for clinical practice?: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Serious games (SGs) have great potential for pediatric medical education. This study evaluated the efficacy of a SG in improving learner satisfaction, knowledge, and behavior.Materials and methods This was an investigator-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing a SG against two controls: (i) adaptive tutorial (AT), and (ii) low-stimulus control (LSC). SG is a highly immersive role-playing game in a virtual hospital. AT delivers interactive web-based lessons. LSC is paper-based clinical practice guidelines. Metropolitan senior medical students at UNSW were eligible. A total of 154 enrolled and were block randomized to one intervention. Participants had access to one intervention for 8 weeks which taught pediatric acute asthma and seizure assessment and management. Satisfaction was assessed with Likert-scale responses to 5 statements and 2 free-text comments. Knowledge was assessed with 10 multiple-choice questions (MCQs). Clinical behavior was assessed during a 30-point simulated clinical management scenario (CMS). Primary analysis was performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis and compared: (1) SG vs. AT; and (2) SG vs. LSC.Results A total of 118 participants were included in the primary analysis (modified intention-to-treat model). No significant differences in MCQ results between the SG and control groups. SG group outperformed the LSC group in the CMS, with a moderate effect (score out of 30: 20.8 (3.2) vs. 18.7 (3.2), respectively, d = 0.65 (0.2–1.1), p = 0.005). No statistically significant difference between SG and AT groups in the CMS (score: 20.8 (3.2) vs. 19.8 (3.1), respectively, d = 0.31 (–0.1 to 0.8), p = 0.18). A sensitivity analysis (per-protocol model) was performed with similar outcomes.Conclusions This is the first investigator-blinded RCT assessing the efficacy of a highly immersive SG on learner attitudes, knowledge acquisition, and performance in simulated pediatric clinical scenarios. The SG demonstrated improved translation of knowledge to a simulated clinical environment, particularly compared to LSC. SGs show promise in pediatric medical 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".