A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Learners' Perceptions During Simulation-Based Training: An Interview Study Comparing Remote Versus Locally Facilitated Simulation-Based Training. | LitMetric

Learners' Perceptions During Simulation-Based Training: An Interview Study Comparing Remote Versus Locally Facilitated Simulation-Based Training.

Simul Healthc

From the Nykøbing Falster Sygehus (M.D.C.), Nykøbing Falster; CAMES - Herlev (D.O., P.D.), Herlev, Denmark; and Sydney Clinical Skills and Simulation Centre (L.W.), Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.

Published: October 2018

Introduction: Remotely facilitated simulation-based training (RF-SBT) is less positively appraised than face-to-face, locally facilitated simulation-based training (LF-SBT), despite being considered as an acceptable alternative. This study compared the perceptions of learners after RF-SBT and LF-SBT to explain differences between the two and identify relevant theories that would guide future practice.

Methods: Telephone interviews were conducted with 21 newly graduated doctors and nurses who completed a standardized simulation course delivered in both RF-SBT and LF-SBT formats.

Results: Participants reported that both SBT formats to be highly beneficial, however, were less positive about RF-SBT. They described a range of psychosocial and cognitive responses that explained their positive and negative attitudes to different aspects of the training. These perceptions, occurring across both formats, included a sense of the following: belonging to instructor and group, surveillance, responsibility, realism, contextual understanding, conscious mental effort, control of attention, and engagement with task. Participants associated these perceptions and ensuing attitudes to SBT with factors arising during, and/or existing before, the SBT as if in an input-output process model. The former 'enabling' factors related to human interaction, technology, and instructional design, whereas the latter 'precursor' factors reflected pre-existing attributes of the participants and instructors. These findings are supported by several theoretical models of which the technology acceptance model is arguably the best fit.

Conclusions: Locally facilitated simulation-based training is easier to use and experience than RF-SBT; however, the latter's negative impact may be concealed by SBT's overarching very high perceived value. The technology acceptance model is an appropriate conceptual model to explain these processes.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000300DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

simulation-based training
20
facilitated simulation-based
16
locally facilitated
12
rf-sbt lf-sbt
8
technology acceptance
8
acceptance model
8
training
6
simulation-based
5
rf-sbt
5
learners' perceptions
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!