16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Challenges and opportunities in the uptake of simulation in healthcare education in the developing world: a scoping review

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Simulation is increasingly being adopted by healthcare educators throughout the developed world as it offers a safe environment to practice skills. While there is literature on learning via simulation in healthcare in the developed world, more studies are required to investigate the factors influencing this approach in the developing world.

          Objective

          This scoping review highlights the key factors that act as deterrents as well as encouragement to the uptake of simulation as a teaching methodology in healthcare education in developing countries.

          Design

          The MEDLINE (via OVID, using keywords and MeSH in OVID), and PubMed (via NCBI using MeSH), and CINAHL databases were searched between January 2000 and January 2024 for research articles published in peer reviewed English language journals using a combination of keywords.

          Results

          A total of 48 articles were included in the final analysis. Challenges and opportunities were divided into professional, academic, and resource-based factors, and their individual sub-themes. The main challenges reported were the lack of a contextual curriculum, content heavy curricula, dearth of trained simulationists and cost of simulators. Performance anxiety was an important challenge reported by both trainers and trainees. Main opportunities were an interest in adopting simulation-based education from both trainers and trainees, and the opportunity to improve patient safety and quality of education. Other findings were that academic leadership and faculty show interest and urgency to adopt simulation in curricula and allocate funds for this. Facilitators need to be provided with protected time to become simulationists. Local manufacturers need to be sourced for simulators, and transfer of technology and expertise needs to be negotiated.

          Conclusion

          Simulation needs to be looked at from the lens of not only education, but more importantly of patient safety in developing countries to allow simulation-based education to be mainstreamed in health professions education in low- and middle-income contexts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references71

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

            Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature.

              Scoping studies are increasingly undertaken as distinct activities. The interpretation, methodology and expectations of scoping are highly variable. This suggests that conceptually, scoping is a poorly defined ambiguous term. The distinction between scoping as an integral preliminary process in the development of a research proposal or a formative, methodologically rigorous activity in its own right has not been extensively examined. The aim of this review is to explore the nature and status of scoping studies within the nursing literature and develop a working definition to ensure consistency in the future use of scoping as a research related activity. This paper follows an interpretative scoping review methodology. An explicit systematic search strategy included literary and web-based key word searches and advice from key researchers. Electronic sources included bibliographic and national research register databases and a general browser. The scoping studies varied widely in terms of intent, procedural and methodological rigor. An atheoretical stance was common although explicit conceptual clarification and development of a topic was limited. Four different levels of inquiry ranging from preliminary descriptive surveys to more substantive conceptual approaches were conceptualised. These levels reflected differing dimensional distinctions in which some activities constitute research whereas in others the scoping activities appear to fall outside the remit of research. Reconnaissance emerges as a common synthesising construct to explain the purpose of scoping. Scoping studies in relation to nursing are embryonic and continue to evolve. Its main strengths lie in its ability to extract the essence of a diverse body of evidence giving it meaning and significance that is both developmental and intellectually creative. As with other approaches to research and evidence synthesis a more standardized approach is required.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                MedEdPublish (2016)
                MedEdPublish (2016)
                MedEdPublish
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2312-7996
                24 May 2024
                2024
                : 14
                : 38
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for innovation and Medical Education, The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan
                [2 ]Department of Nursing, The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan
                [3 ]Department of Medicine, The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan
                [4 ]Medical College, The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan
                [5 ]Department of Nursing, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
                [1 ]Department of Child Health Nursing, Manipal College of Nursing, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India
                [1 ]Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
                Author notes

                No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0983-0644
                https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1303-3596
                Article
                10.12688/mep.20271.1
                11384200
                39257565
                a9a32f9d-c94d-46ff-9d14-396b6049167f
                Copyright: © 2024 Ismail FW et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 10 May 2024
                Funding
                The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Articles

                education,healthcare,simulation,opportunities,challenges
                education, healthcare, simulation, opportunities, challenges

                Comments

                Comment on this article