Dataset Information

Simulation as More Than a Treatment-Planning Tool: A Systematic Review of the Literature on Radiation Oncology Simulation-Based Medical Education.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Simulation-based medical education (SBME) is gaining prominence as a tool to meet Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-mandated competency-based assessment educational goals. SBME is used in radiation oncology, although the type and extent are not clear. This study reports a systematic literature review designed to clarify the type and extent of radiation oncology SBME.

Methods and materials

The systematic review focused on radiation oncology SBME literature. The methods followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The inclusion criteria were identified according to the PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and setting) framework. The population included undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education learners. Studies were limited to English-language studies published on or after January 1, 1990, in peer-reviewed journals. PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and in-press articles were searched. The PubMed search was conducted using predefined search terms. References and similar articles were examined. Medical Subject Headings terms in selected articles were reviewed to ensure relevant terms were included.

Results

Fifty-four SBME publications met the inclusion criteria. Only 9 of 54 studies (17%) self-identified as SBME. SBME types included screen-based simulators (56%), simulated environments (13%), virtual reality and haptic systems (13%), simulated patients (11%), part-task trainers (6%), and computer-based systems with mannequins (2%). A variety of radiation oncology skill sets were addressed, including contouring (54%), treatment planning (20%), clinical decision making (17%), anatomy and/or radiology (13%), radiation biology and/or physics (13%), communication skills and/or patient education (13%), brachytherapy (13%), and immobilization (11%). A target learning population was defined in 47 studies, including residents (53%), attending physicians (36%), medical students (21%), medical physicists (11%), radiation therapists (9%), nurses (6%), administrative staff (4%), and dosimetrists (4%). Learner feedback was reported in 32 studies.

Conclusions

Overall, this systematic literature review provides context and guidance for future radiation oncology SBME development. Appropriately framing SBME reports in the radiation oncology literature will facilitate development, implementation, and evaluation of SBME interventions. SBME resources should be centralized to facilitate dissemination and share resources.

SUBMITTER: Rooney MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8015756 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Evaluating the patient impact of health professions education is a societal priority with many challenges. Researchers would benefit from a summary of topics studied and potential methodological problems. We sought to summarize key information on patient outcomes identified in a comprehensive systematic review of simulation-based instruction.Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and bibliographies of previous reviews through May 2011.Original research in any language measuring the direct effects on patients of simulation-based instruction for health professionals, in comparison with no intervention or other instruction.Two reviewers independently abstracted information on learners, topics, study quality including unit of analysis, and validity evidence. We pooled outcomes using random effects.From 10,903 articles screened, we identified 50 studies reporting patient outcomes for at least 3,221 trainees and 16,742 patients. Clinical topics included airway management (14 studies), gastrointestinal endoscopy (12), and central venous catheter insertion (8). There were 31 studies involving postgraduate physicians and seven studies each involving practicing physicians, nurses, and emergency medicine technicians. Fourteen studies (28 %) used an appropriate unit of analysis. Measurement validity was supported in seven studies reporting content evidence, three reporting internal structure, and three reporting relations with other variables. The pooled Hedges' g effect size for 33 comparisons with no intervention was 0.47 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.63); and for nine comparisons with non-simulation instruction, it was 0.36 (95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.78).Focused field in education; high inconsistency (I(2)?>?50 % in most analyses).Simulation-based education was associated with small-moderate patient benefits in comparison with no intervention and non-simulation instruction, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Unit of analysis errors were common, and validity evidence was infrequently reported.

Project description:Purpose/objectivesThree-dimensional (3D) printing is recognized as an effective clinical and educational tool in procedurally intensive specialties. However, it has a nascent role in radiation oncology. The goal of this investigation is to clarify the extent to which 3D printing applications are currently being used in radiation oncology through a systematic review of the literature.Materials/methodsA search protocol was defined according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included articles were evaluated using parameters of interest including: year and country of publication, experimental design, sample size for clinical studies, radiation oncology topic, reported outcomes, and implementation barriers or safety concerns.ResultsOne hundred and three publications from 2012 to 2019 met inclusion criteria. The most commonly described 3D printing applications included quality assurance phantoms (26%), brachytherapy applicators (20%), bolus (17%), preclinical animal irradiation (10%), compensators (7%), and immobilization devices (5%). Most studies were preclinical feasibility studies (63%), with few clinical investigations such as case reports or series (13%) or cohort studies (11%). The most common applications evaluated within clinical settings included brachytherapy applicators (44%) and bolus (28%). Sample sizes for clinical investigations were small (median 10, range 1-42). A minority of articles described basic or translational research (11%) and workflow or cost evaluation studies (3%). The number of articles increased over time (P < 0.0001). While outcomes were heterogeneous, most studies reported successful implementation of accurate and cost-effective 3D printing methods.ConclusionsThree-dimensional printing is rapidly growing in radiation oncology and has been implemented effectively in a diverse array of applications. Although the number of 3D printing publications has steadily risen, the majority of current reports are preclinical in nature and the few clinical studies that do exist report on small sample sizes. Further dissemination of ongoing investigations describing the clinical application of developed 3D printing technologies in larger cohorts is warranted.

Project description:PurposeDigitalization of medical education is an important trend in terms of reforming and modernizing the global education environment. It has been long requested by students and politicians. The goal of this study was to assess the student perception of a newly developed digital educational program in radiation oncology (RO) using an interactive e‑book combined with short learnings clips on a YouTube channel combined with periodic videoconferences and a forum for queries.MethodsWe performed five evaluations during and at the end of two terms with multiple-choice and free-text answers. We evaluated student perception of our new digital learning scenario in three semesters: one pre-clinical and two clinical semesters. In addition, we analyzed all comments from the kMED forum, the YouTube channel, or the e‑mail contacts. We analyzed the learning behavior of the students based on access to the videos and the number and quality of the reflective questions answered as well as the results of the final examinations.ResultsThe students accepted the offer for asynchronous teaching and mainly learned on weekdays (74% of the videos), but also on weekends (23%) and less on public holidays (4%). The answer quality of the reflective questions was good with over 50% correct answers on the first attempt. Learning to be on one's own authority was very difficult for the students, even in the last clinical semesters of the medical study. Without direct intervention by the teacher, access to the learning material by the students was limited and delayed. Therefore, voluntary interim tests were performed during the first analysis term, which led to an increased number of student accesses to the videos and higher number of answers. Nevertheless, in the first analysis term, the average results in the final exam of the students who did not perform the interim test were below average at 59.1%, and the students who performed the test had better results at 69.5% but this was also not satisfactory. In the second analysis term, we taught with the same digital teaching model but with an additional scheme for learning over the term, 2‑week compulsory intermediate tests, and frequent videoconferences to answer any questions. In this term, we measured a success rate of 93% in the final exam. All annotations were very positive regarding the new educational project. The evaluations showed high acceptance of the new education program. The students stated they would prefer the new education course to be continued in future.ConclusionDigital teaching methods make not only the type and quality of teaching transparent, but also the learning behavior of the students. Our analysis has shown that, in addition to the quality of the teaching, the clear structure and specification of the learning content per learning week as well as regular monitoring of what has been learned are of decisive importance for the learning success of the students.