Virtual simulation can have a positive impact on student outcomes; still, guidance from an educator and a reliable connection to the internet are cited as important factors for a positive learning experience. However, when students are asked to complete the simulation outside of class time, it remains unknown how their experience is impacted.
The objective of this scoping review is to answer the question: What are health professional student experiences with
We will include published peer-reviewed evidence about any health professional student completing virtual simulation outside of a course context. To be included, the virtual simulation activity needs to be required as part of a course.
We will use the scoping review methodology from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Published literature will be located through Medline and Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL, Education Source Complete and ERIC (via Ebsco) and the Web of Science Core Collection. We will search for qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies written in English, French or Portuguese. No date limit will be applied. Two reviewers will independently screen articles in the Covidence systematic review management software. Data will be extracted and presented in a narrative summary with tables.
Unprecedented challenges stemming from increasing student numbers and decreasing clinical placements forced many health professional programs to shift program delivery strategies, which meant implementing clinical simulation [
In this review we focus on virtual simulations completed outside of a classroom setting. We define a classroom as a physical or virtual space where learning occurs (see
Options for delivering virtual simulations
Classroom environment | Outside classroom environment | |
---|---|---|
Environment | Physical or virtual | Virtual only |
Facilitator present | Yes | No |
Timing | Asynchronous or synchronous | Asynchronous only |
Simulation completion | Independent or collaborative | Independent or collaborative |
Even as health professional programs return to in-person learning, virtual simulation is increasingly being implemented in health professional programs as it is less expensive and resource-intensive than in-person simulation [
The effects of virtual simulation, when completed in the classroom, have been identified [
This review is designed to answer the following question: What are health professional student experiences with 1) What are the barriers (e.g. self-direction, poor internet connection) faced by healthcare students who are completing virtual simulations outside of the classroom setting? 2) What are the benefits (e.g. psychological safety, clear instructions) for healthcare students who are completing virtual simulations outside of the classroom setting? 3) What outcomes (e.g. satisfaction, learning, knowledge) do students describe obtaining when completing a virtual simulation outside of the classroom setting?
This proposed scoping review will be conducted following the JBI methodology for scoping reviews [
Inclusion criteria used in this review are summarized in
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion | Exclusion | |
---|---|---|
Participants | • Any healthcare student | • Non-healthcare students |
Concept | • Virtual simulation: Screen-based simulations (completed on a computer, tablet or smartphone) |
• Computerized learning activities that are not interactive |
Context | • Required or recommended as part of a course |
• Completed in a physical or virtual computer lab or classroom setting |
Evidence Type | • All study types (e.g. qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods) |
• Editorials |
In this scoping review, we will consider studies that include health professional students as the population. The health professional students that we will consider are many, including, but not limited to: acupuncturist, audiologist, dentist, medicine, nursing, physiotherapist, pharmacist, psychologist, social worker and therapist. Determination of what constitutes a health professional program will be determined using international standards [
In this scoping review, we will consider empirical evidence on the use of virtual simulation. There are many terms used to represent virtual simulation, which we define as an experience operated by a student on a computer screen [
To be included in this review, the virtual simulation activity needs to be (1) required as part of a course in a health professional program for students and (2) explicitly stated that it was completed outside the classroom setting (e.g. students own home). If the simulation activity was performed in a computer lab, or classroom environment, then the report will be excluded.
This scoping review will include quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies of any nature as well as text and opinion papers. Grey literature, systematic reviews and conference abstracts will be excluded.
The search strategy for this scoping review is designed to locate peer-reviewed publications. A three-step search strategy will be used: (1) an initial search, (2) database searches and (3) reviewing reference lists of included studies. First, an initial limited search of MEDLINE, Web of Science and CINAHL was undertaken to identify potentially relevant articles related to our topic of interest and refine the keywords used in the search. After selecting potentially relevant studies, the words contained in the titles and abstracts, as well as the controlled database language used to describe articles were used to develop a full search strategy for MEDLINE (Appendix
We will search Medline and Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL, Education Source Complete and ERIC (via Ebsco) and the Web of Science Core Collection. In addition, we will conduct a specific search of major simulation journals that are not indexed in these databases. These journals that are not indexed include the International Journal of Healthcare Simulation and Advances in Simulation.
Search results will be imported into Covidence systematic review management software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) to automatically remove duplicates and facilitate article screening. Title and abstract screening by two independent reviewers will occur following pilot testing with the team of reviewers. Conflicts will be resolved by senior reviewers on the team. Then, two independent reviewers will conduct a full-text review following another round of pilot testing. Reasons that articles were excluded will be tracked in Covidence and reported with the final review. Disagreements will be resolved through a discussion involving at least one of the senior reviewers on the team. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram illustrating this process and search results will be included in the final report [
Two independent reviewers will extract data from each article that meets the inclusion criteria. Extraction will occur verbatim using a common tool developed by the reviewers (see Appendix
Findings pertinent to the review questions will be summarized in tables, figures and/or using a narrative summary as appropriate. Quantitative data will be summarized using descriptive statistics (counts, percentages), and qualitative data will be summarized using content analysis.
Kaitlin Adduono and Shelly Clark for providing feedback on this project.
None declared.
None declared.
None declared.
None declared.
We are all members of the Canadian Alliance of Nurse Educators using Simulation (CAN-Sim). Dr. Luctkar-Flude and Dr. Tyerman are co-presidents of CAN-Sim.
Concept | # | Query | Results from 9 June 2022 |
---|---|---|---|
Participant Role (Student) | 1 | exp Students/ | 155,018 |
2 | Student*.mp. | 368,161 | |
3 | Learner*.mp. | 19,861 | |
4 | Traine*.mp. | 193,176 | |
5 | 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 | 558,136 | |
Participant Discipline | 6 | exp Education, Professional/ | 321,962 |
7 | (Healthcare student* or Health care student* or Medic* or Nurs* or Physiother* or Physical therap* or Occupational Therap* or Podiatr* or Orthoti* or Speech therap* or Speech patholog* or Audiolog* or Prostheti* or Social work* or Paramedic* or Opthalmolog* or Dieteti* or Nutrition* or Psycholog* or Midwif* or Optometr* or Radio* or Pharmac* or Kinesiolog* or Physical education*).mp. | 10,762,674 | |
8 | 6 or 7 | 10,802,871 | |
Concept of Virtual Simulation | 9 | exp Computer Simulation/ | 277,604 |
10 | exp Virtual Reality/ | 4,518 | |
11 | (Clinical virtual simulation* or Computer simulation* or computer-simulated case or Computerized Clinical Simulation Test* or Online simulat* or Serious game* or Three-dimensional virtual world or Video patient scenario or Virtual gaming simulat* or Virtual patient* simulat* or Virtual simulat* or Web-based simulat*).mp. | 221,944 | |
12 | 9 or 10 or 11 | 293,650 | |
Concept of Experience | 13 | (Attitude* or belief* or experience* or feeling* or Impression* or opinion* or perception* or perspective* or Student Experiences or thought* or view*).mp. | 3,141,731 |
Concept | 14 | 12 and 13 | 27,956 |
Context of Outside the Classroom | 15 | (home* or asynchron* or distance or remote or online education or independent stud*).mp. | 1,060,900 |
Concept and Context | 16 | 14 and 15 | 1,943 |
Participant | 17 | 5 or 8 | 11,008,967 |
Concept and Participant | 18 | 14 and 17 | 10,358 |
Context, Concept and Participant | 19 | 15 and 18 | 750 |
mp = title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, floating sub-heading word, keyword heading word, organism supplementary concept word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms.
PCC | Search | Search query and results | Results |
---|---|---|---|
Concept, Context and Participant | 9 | #8 AND #3 | 1,670 |
Concept and Context | 8 | #7 AND #6 | 22,543 |
Concept | 7 | #4 AND #5 | 105,486 |
Context of Outside the Classroom | 6 | ALL=(home* OR asynchron* OR distance OR remote OR online OR independent) | 4,602,179 |
Concept of Experience | 5 | ALL=(Attitude* OR belief* OR Experience* OR feel* OR Impression* OR opinion* OR Percept* OR perspective* OR thought* OR View*) | 6,514,022 |
Concept of Virtual Simulation | 4 | ALL=(Clinical virtual simulation* OR Computer simulation* OR computer-simulated case OR Computerized Clinical Simulation Test* OR Online simulat* OR Serious game* OR Three-dimensional virtual world OR Video patient scenario OR Virtual gaming simulat* OR Virtual patient* simulat* OR Virtual reality OR Virtual simulat* OR Web-based simulat*) | 806,056 |
Participant | 3 | #2 AND #1 | 574,963 |
Participant Discipline | 2 | ALL=(“Health profession*” OR “Health science*” OR “Allied health” OR Medic* OR Nurs* OR Physiother* OR “Physical therap*” OR “Occupational Therap*” OR Podiatr* OR Orthoti* OR “Speech therap*” OR “Speech patholog*” OR Audiolog* OR Prostheti* OR “Social work*” OR Paramedic* OR Opthalmolog* OR Dieteti* OR Nutrition* OR Psycholog* OR Midwif* OR Optometr* OR Radio* OR Pharmac* OR Kinesiolog* OR Physical education*) | 16,112,903 |
Participant Role (Student) | 1 | Student* OR Learner* OR Traine* (All Fields) | 1,647,235 |
Authors |
Year of publication |
Title of the report |
Type of publication (e.g. editorial, manuscript, webpage) |
Design (e.g. qualitative descriptive) |
Country of publication |
Sample/Population (e.g. nursing students) |
Procedures (e.g. semi-structured interview guide) |
Aim/Purpose |
Participants |
Concept – Describe the simulation |
Context – Where were simulations completed? |
What are health professional student |
What are the |
What are the |
What |
Other notes |