A scoping review of international allied health professions escape room practices and scholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this scoping review is to assess the literature on allied health professions escape rooms (AHPERs), investigating their common purposes and practices, and the trends in scholarship. METHODS: This scoping review followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines to assess the size and scope of evidence in the literature, categorize common purposes and practices, and explore trends in AHPER scholarship. Two reviewers developed a review protocol, collected literature using a search strategy aligned with inclusion criteria, and charted review results. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 6,170 articles. After the final review, 34 unique records met inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in the United States, Spain, Australia, France, Brazil, and Canada. Most escape rooms reported participants, team size, puzzle type, and outcomes, but few used causal research designs, primarily using pre-post with no control designs. AHPERs represent an increasingly popular pedagogical approach. AHPERs tend to be simply structured, patient themed, and convey either disciplinary or interprofessional lessons. Generally, AHPERs were self-reported as effective and satisfying, but scholarship supporting AHPERs was insufficient in design for causal claims. CONCLUSION: Developers and scholars may benefit from considering frameworks and guidelines for consistent creation and increased trustworthiness in the AHPER practice and knowledge base. Where AHPER scholars can increase attention to learning outcomes, and plan scholarly works in advance of the escape room, the AHPER body of knowledge will increase.
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 | 0.044 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.047 | 0.046 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".