TY - JOUR
T1 - Simulation in psychiatry for medical doctors: A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Piot, M.A.
AU - Dechartres, A.
AU - Attoe, C.
AU - Jollant, F.
AU - Lemogne, C.
AU - Burn, C.L.
AU - Rethans, J.J.
AU - Michelet, D.
AU - Cross, S.
AU - Billon, G.
AU - Guerrier, G.
AU - Tesniere, A.
AU - Falissard, B.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to thank all the corresponding authors who responded to author requests and provided data additional to those reported in full text articles. We thank and acknowledge Aurore Cartier (Faculty of Health, University of Paris, Paris, France), an experienced research librarian, for her support in designing a MEDLINE search query.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
PY - 2020/8/1
Y1 - 2020/8/1
N2 - Context Most medical doctors are likely to work with patients experiencing mental health conditions. However, educational opportunities for medical doctors to achieve professional development in the field of psychiatry are often limited. Simulation training in psychiatry may be a useful tool to foster this development.Objectives The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatry for medical students, postgraduate trainees and medical doctors.Methods For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched eight electronic databases and trial registries up to 31 August 2018. We manually searched key journals and the reference lists of selected studies. We included randomised and non-randomised controlled studies and single group pre- and post-test studies. Our main outcomes were based on Kirkpatrick levels. We included data only from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using random-effects models.Results From 46 571 studies identified, we selected 163 studies and combined 27 RCTs. Interventions included simulation by role-play (n = 69), simulated patients (n = 72), virtual reality (n = 22), manikin (n = 5) and voice simulation (n = 2). Meta-analysis found significant differences at immediate post-tests for simulation compared with active and inactive control groups for attitudes (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.73 [I-2 = 0.0%] and SMD = 0.28, 95% CI 0.04-0.53 [I-2 = 52.0%], respectively), skills (SMD = 1.37, 95% CI 0.56-2.18 [I-2 = 93.0%] and SMD = 1.49, 95% CI 0.39-2.58 [I-2 = 93.0%], respectively), knowledge (SMD = 1.22, 95% CI 0.57-1.88 [I-2 = 0.0%] and SMD = 0.72, 95% CI 0.14-1.30 [I-2 = 80.0%], respectively), and behaviours (SMD = 1.07, 95% CI 0.49-1.65 [I-2 = 68.0%] and SMD = 0.45, 95% CI 0.11-0.79 [I-2 = 41.0%], respectively). Significant differences in terms of patient benefit and doctors' behaviours and skills were found at the 3-month follow-up.Conclusions Despite heterogeneity in methods and simulation interventions, our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatry training.
AB - Context Most medical doctors are likely to work with patients experiencing mental health conditions. However, educational opportunities for medical doctors to achieve professional development in the field of psychiatry are often limited. Simulation training in psychiatry may be a useful tool to foster this development.Objectives The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatry for medical students, postgraduate trainees and medical doctors.Methods For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched eight electronic databases and trial registries up to 31 August 2018. We manually searched key journals and the reference lists of selected studies. We included randomised and non-randomised controlled studies and single group pre- and post-test studies. Our main outcomes were based on Kirkpatrick levels. We included data only from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using random-effects models.Results From 46 571 studies identified, we selected 163 studies and combined 27 RCTs. Interventions included simulation by role-play (n = 69), simulated patients (n = 72), virtual reality (n = 22), manikin (n = 5) and voice simulation (n = 2). Meta-analysis found significant differences at immediate post-tests for simulation compared with active and inactive control groups for attitudes (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.73 [I-2 = 0.0%] and SMD = 0.28, 95% CI 0.04-0.53 [I-2 = 52.0%], respectively), skills (SMD = 1.37, 95% CI 0.56-2.18 [I-2 = 93.0%] and SMD = 1.49, 95% CI 0.39-2.58 [I-2 = 93.0%], respectively), knowledge (SMD = 1.22, 95% CI 0.57-1.88 [I-2 = 0.0%] and SMD = 0.72, 95% CI 0.14-1.30 [I-2 = 80.0%], respectively), and behaviours (SMD = 1.07, 95% CI 0.49-1.65 [I-2 = 68.0%] and SMD = 0.45, 95% CI 0.11-0.79 [I-2 = 41.0%], respectively). Significant differences in terms of patient benefit and doctors' behaviours and skills were found at the 3-month follow-up.Conclusions Despite heterogeneity in methods and simulation interventions, our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatry training.
KW - communication-skills
KW - health nursing-education
KW - intervention
KW - mental-health
KW - primary-care
KW - randomized controlled-trial
KW - residents
KW - standardized patients
KW - training health
KW - undergraduate psychiatry
KW - UNDERGRADUATE PSYCHIATRY
KW - RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL
KW - MENTAL-HEALTH
KW - TRAINING HEALTH
KW - COMMUNICATION-SKILLS
KW - RESIDENTS
KW - PRIMARY-CARE
KW - HEALTH NURSING-EDUCATION
KW - STANDARDIZED PATIENTS
KW - INTERVENTION
U2 - 10.1111/medu.14166
DO - 10.1111/medu.14166
M3 - (Systematic) Review article
C2 - 32242966
SN - 0308-0110
VL - 54
SP - 696
EP - 708
JO - Medical Education
JF - Medical Education
IS - 8
ER -