Claims

Distance simulation of technical skills achieves skill outcomes comparable to traditional on-site training in most comparative studies

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Among 32 comparative studies with skills assessment as primary outcome, distance simulation had comparable effectiveness to traditional on-site training in 29 studies (91%). → Wei W 2026

Evidence

Wei W 2026

Wei W, Nielsen MS, Nielsen AB, Han Y, Russell L, Konge L, Cold KM. (2026). Hands-on Distance Simulation of Technical Skills: A Systematic Review. Simulation in Healthcare. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000881

q3 · i? · review · r3

Systematic review following PRISMA of 104 studies; 38 comparative studies (29 RCTs, 9 non-RCTs) compared distance simulation with on-site training. The review reports "distance simulation had comparable effectiveness in 29 studies (91%)" for skill outcomes.

"Skills assessment was the primary outcome in the remaining 32 studies (Kirkpatrick level 2). Among those studies, distance simulation had comparable effectiveness in 29 studies (91%)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.