Background This network meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of different educational methods for healthcare professionals.
Methods A systematic literature search was conducted to identify relevant randomised controlled trials. The standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI was estimated using network meta-analysis for knowledge acquisition and skill performance, and ranked the effects of different educational methods using the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SCURA) technique.
Results Fifty-five randomised controlled trials including of 4292 participants were identified. Compared with no intervention, the results demonstrated all education methods achieved significant improvements in knowledge acquisition (SMD 1.73–2.66). Only education methods involving high fidelity virtual patient simulation reported significantly better skill performance (SMD 1.25–1.81). High fidelity virtual patient simulation plus self-directed learning was the most effective educational method both in terms of knowledge acquisition (SMD 2.66, 95% CI 1.4 to 4.12, SCURA 0.78) and skill performance (SMD 1.81, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.2, SCURA 0.89).
Conclusions Our study demonstrates all educational methods have positive effects on knowledge acquisition, but education methods involving high fidelity virtual patient simulation are better at improving skill performance than other methods.
- public health
- medical education & training
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
H-JJ and L-JO-Y contributed equally.
Contributors H-JJ and L-JO-Y were equal contributors in this study. Study Design: H-JJ, L-JO-Y, and M-HL; Data collection: H-JJ, L-JO-Y, and M-HL; Data analysis: P-HC and C-HL; Writing: H-JJ, L-JO-Y, and M-HL; Methodology: P-HC; Study revision: C-LH and C-HL. All authors read and approved the final version of manuscript.
Funding Tri-Service General Hospital/National Defence Medical Centre (No. TSGH-D-110141).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.