Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAndersen, Jeanette Viggen
dc.contributor.authorDieckmann, Gerhard Peter
dc.date.accessioned2023-12-19T07:27:23Z
dc.date.available2023-12-19T07:27:23Z
dc.date.created2023-12-15T08:22:10Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.issn2059-0628
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3108082
dc.description.abstractBackground Simulation in healthcare attempts to create relevant representations of patient encounters. It pro- vides experiential learning, bridging typical classroom activities and clinical practice. This study aims to investigate whether the principle of Peer-Assisted Learning can be used in simulation by letting simulation-experienced para- medic students prepare, deliver, and debrief their own simulations, with minimal faculty assistance. This could be a way to support student learning by being involved in teaching, and it might at the same time optimise the cost- effectiveness of simulation-based training. Methods This observational non-inferiority study compared reflection levels between facilitator-led and student- led simulation and debriefing, between scenario types, and compared the number of turns in which students are involved in both settings. Third-year Bachelor in Paramedic Science students’ debriefings were filmed and transcribed. The degree of reflection in students’ statements was rated according to a modified version of Fleck’s analytical frame- work of reflection levels, assigning scores from lowest (R0 description) to highest (R4 critical reflection). Facilitator-led and student-led debriefings were compared using chi-square tests. Scenarios were also analysed according to type (paediatric emergencies and complex assessments) regardless of who led the simulation. Results Ten facilitator-led and 12 student-led debriefings were analysed. Students gave 682 (49%) contributions in the facilitator-led debriefings, and 702 (51%) contributions in student-led debriefings. Comparison of reflection levels between facilitator-led and student-led debriefings was respectively: R0-level 32.7% vs 33.8%, R1-level 44.0% vs 44.3%, R2-level 14.7% vs 17.1%, R3-level 0.1% vs 1.3%, and R4-level 0.1% vs 0.1%. There were no statistically sig- nificant differences in reflection levels between facilitator-led and student-led debriefings (p = 0.178). Comparing the reflection levels between the scenarios on “paediatric emergencies” and “complex assessments”, the results were respectively: R0-level 35.4% vs. 31.7%-level, R1-level 45.3% vs. 43.3%-level, R2-level 13.4% vs. 17.8%, R3-level 0.5% vs. 0.9%, and R4-level 0.0% vs. 0.3%. These differences were statistically significant (p = 0.010). No significant differ- ences in engagement were found between debriefings led by a student or a facilitator, when measuring the number of turns in the conversations.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleComparing reflection levels between facilitator-led and student-led debriefing in simulation training for paramedic studentsen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s41077-023-00273-0
dc.identifier.cristin2213924
dc.source.journalAdvances in Simulationen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal