Claims

Non-randomized and pre/post-test studies broadly support simulation training benefits for attitudes, skills, knowledge and behaviors, though subject to natural learning effects

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · 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.

q2 i? Most pre/post-test (n = 65) and non-randomized controlled (n = 14) studies showed significant improvement in attitudes, skills, knowledge, and behaviors. → Richard Océane 2023

Evidence

Richard Océane 2023

Richard Océane, Jollant Fabrice, Billon Grégoire, Attoe Chris, Vodovar Dominique, Piot Marie-Aude. (2023). Simulation training in suicide risk assessment and intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Education Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2199469

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Narrative analysis of the review's non-RCT and PPT studies. For attitudes, "42 out of 48 PPT studies reporting statistical significance" improved; the review notes natural learning effects cannot be excluded in single-group pre/post designs.

"In addition to RCTs, 10 out of 13 non-RCTs (including attitude toward suicidal patients, self-confidence, and self-efficacy) and 42 out of 48 PPT studies reporting statistical significance on attitudes provide further support on the effectiveness of simulation-based education, even if we cannot exclude natural learning effect for PPTs."

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.