Effectiveness of Peer-Led vs. Instructor-Led Debriefing in High-Fidelity Simulation-Based Healthcare Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 1.2 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL

Clinical Teacher Pub Date : 2026-03-22 DOI:10.1111/tct.70403

Safi Ullah Khan, Arsalan Ahmed, Mahnoor Ishaque, Sheeza Yousaf, Diya Rathi, Muhammad Younas, Aizaz Anwar Khalid

{"title":"Effectiveness of Peer-Led vs. Instructor-Led Debriefing in High-Fidelity Simulation-Based Healthcare Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Safi Ullah Khan, Arsalan Ahmed, Mahnoor Ishaque, Sheeza Yousaf, Diya Rathi, Muhammad Younas, Aizaz Anwar Khalid","doi":"10.1111/tct.70403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Simulation-based training enhances medical education by improving learners' experience and proficiency. High-fidelity simulation (HFS) increases skill acquisition and retention when compared to standard training techniques. Debriefing is a key part of simulation education and peer-led debriefing (PLD) may also be appropriate. This study aims to determine whether PLD is as effective as instructor-led debriefing (ILD) in improving learner outcomes in HFS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This SRMA followed the PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines and was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251082121). PubMed, Cochrane and Embase were databases searched from inception to June 2025. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using RoB 2. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects models; heterogeneity was assessed using <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> using RevMan 5.4.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>Six studies (five quasi-experimental and one RCT) containing 476 participants (peer-led: 245; instructor-led: 231) were included. No statistically significant differences were found between PLD and ILD. The overall certainty of the evidence was low to moderate. For Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH), MD = −1.06 (95% CI: −3.81, 1.69; <i>p</i> = 0.45; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 87%). Organised debriefing: MD 0.19 (95% CI: −0.64, 1.02; <i>p</i> = 0.65; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 91%). Other outcomes (e.g., helping achieve good practice, identifying performance gaps and establishing engaging learning environment) also showed nonsignificant differences.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Implications</h3>\n \n <p>No statistically significant differences were observed between PLD and ILD across the included studies. Limited and heterogeneous evidence base means the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Robust, well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm these findings, address heterogeneity and explore long-term effects.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47324,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Teacher","volume":"23 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://asmepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tct.70403","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Simulation-based training enhances medical education by improving learners' experience and proficiency. High-fidelity simulation (HFS) increases skill acquisition and retention when compared to standard training techniques. Debriefing is a key part of simulation education and peer-led debriefing (PLD) may also be appropriate. This study aims to determine whether PLD is as effective as instructor-led debriefing (ILD) in improving learner outcomes in HFS.

Methods

This SRMA followed the PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines and was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251082121). PubMed, Cochrane and Embase were databases searched from inception to June 2025. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using RoB 2. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects models; heterogeneity was assessed using I² using RevMan 5.4.

Findings

Six studies (five quasi-experimental and one RCT) containing 476 participants (peer-led: 245; instructor-led: 231) were included. No statistically significant differences were found between PLD and ILD. The overall certainty of the evidence was low to moderate. For Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH), MD = −1.06 (95% CI: −3.81, 1.69; p = 0.45; I² = 87%). Organised debriefing: MD 0.19 (95% CI: −0.64, 1.02; p = 0.65; I² = 91%). Other outcomes (e.g., helping achieve good practice, identifying performance gaps and establishing engaging learning environment) also showed nonsignificant differences.

Implications

No statistically significant differences were observed between PLD and ILD across the included studies. Limited and heterogeneous evidence base means the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Robust, well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm these findings, address heterogeneity and explore long-term effects.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在基于高保真模拟的医疗保健教育中，同伴领导与教师领导汇报的有效性：一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

背景：基于模拟的培训通过提高学习者的经验和熟练程度来增强医学教育。与标准培训技术相比，高保真仿真（HFS）增加了技能获取和保留。汇报是模拟教育的关键部分，同伴领导的汇报（PLD）也可能是合适的。本研究旨在确定PLD是否与教师主导的汇报（ILD）一样有效地改善HFS的学习者成果。方法：该SRMA遵循PRISMA和Cochrane指南，在PROSPERO上注册（CRD420251082121）。PubMed、Cochrane和Embase数据库的检索时间从成立到2025年6月。两名独立审稿人筛选研究，提取数据并使用RoB 2评估偏倚风险。使用随机效应模型汇总结果；采用RevMan 5.4进行I2异质性评估。研究结果：共纳入6项研究（5项准实验研究和1项随机对照试验），共476名参与者（同伴主导：245人；教师主导：231人）。PLD与ILD之间无统计学差异。证据的总体确定性为低至中等。对于医疗保健模拟汇报评估（DASH）， MD = -1.06 （95% CI: -3.81, 1.69; p = 0.45; I2 = 87%）。有组织的汇报：MD为0.19 （95% CI: -0.64, 1.02; p = 0.65; I2 = 91%）。其他结果（例如，帮助实现良好实践，识别绩效差距和建立参与式学习环境）也显示出不显著差异。含义：在纳入的研究中，PLD和ILD之间没有统计学上的显著差异。有限且异质性的证据基础意味着研究结果应谨慎解释。需要稳健、设计良好的随机对照试验来证实这些发现、解决异质性和探索长期影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Teacher MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

5.60%

发文量

113

期刊介绍： The Clinical Teacher has been designed with the active, practising clinician in mind. It aims to provide a digest of current research, practice and thinking in medical education presented in a readable, stimulating and practical style. The journal includes sections for reviews of the literature relating to clinical teaching bringing authoritative views on the latest thinking about modern teaching. There are also sections on specific teaching approaches, a digest of the latest research published in Medical Education and other teaching journals, reports of initiatives and advances in thinking and practical teaching from around the world, and expert community and discussion on challenging and controversial issues in today"s clinical education.