Simulation training improves attitudes toward suicide risk assessment compared with active comparators immediately after training and compared with inactive comparators at 2–4 months¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q3·i2medium
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.
q3 i2 In RCT meta-analysis, simulation training showed a significant effect on attitudes versus an active comparator at immediate post-test to one-month follow-up (SMD = 0.49). → Richard Océane 2023
q3 i2 At 2 to 4-month follow-up, simulation showed a significant effect on attitudes versus an inactive comparator (SMD = 0.65), but not versus an active comparator. → 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
q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r3
Meta-analysis of 12 RCTs (n = 2,000) assessing attitudes in the review. The pooled effect versus active comparators was SMD = 0.49 (95% CI 0.21–0.77), a printed standardized mean difference; versus inactive comparators no significant difference was found at immediate post-test, but at 2–4 months versus inactive comparators SMD = 0.65 (95% CI 0.43–0.87).
"At immediate post-test to one-month follow-up, a significant large effect size was found comparing simulation training to an active comparator (five studies [42,43,51–53:] Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) = 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21–0.77) with moderate heterogeneity (I [2] = 46%)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Simulation training improves self-perceived skills at six-month follow-up compared with active comparators, but shows no significant skill advantage at immediate post-test — related
- Non-randomized and pre/post-test studies broadly support simulation training benefits for attitudes, skills, knowledge and behaviors, though subject to natural learning effects — a broader claim this one bears on
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.