The impact of the learner role in healthcare simulation-based education on learning outcomes: a systematic review.

IF 5.5 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Abdelkader Amechghal, Aziz Naciri, Kamal Takhdat, Sana Loubbairi, Adil Mellouki, Laila Lahlou, Hicham Nassik
{"title":"The impact of the learner role in healthcare simulation-based education on learning outcomes: a systematic review.","authors":"Abdelkader Amechghal, Aziz Naciri, Kamal Takhdat, Sana Loubbairi, Adil Mellouki, Laila Lahlou, Hicham Nassik","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2026.23.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This review examined the impact of learner role-active participant versus observer-on learning outcomes in healthcare simulation-based education using Kirkpatrick's evaluation model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five databases-PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost-were searched for studies published from January 2018 to November 2024. Eligibility criteria, defined using the PICOS framework, targeted studies comparing learning outcomes between active participant and observer roles among health professions students and practitioners. Methodological quality was appraised using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument, and findings were synthesized narratively. This review was registered in PROSPERO under registration number CRD42024611988.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 648 records, 15 studies involving 1,799 participants met the inclusion criteria; role allocation was specifically reported for 644 active participants and 709 observers. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (13/15) and nursing programs (11/15). At Kirkpatrick Level 1, most studies reported no statistically significant between-role differences, although an active participant advantage emerged for emotional arousal. At Level 2, knowledge, skills, and most attitudinal outcomes did not differ significantly between roles; active participant advantages were observed for technical skills at delayed follow-up, affective competencies in palliative care, and perceived learning transfer. No study assessed Levels 3 or 4.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most studies found no significant differences between observer and active participant roles at Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and 2. Generalizability across all health professions and settings is limited. Pedagogically appropriate use of the observer role supports learning outcomes and may expand access to simulation-based education.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"23 ","pages":"24"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2026.23.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This review examined the impact of learner role-active participant versus observer-on learning outcomes in healthcare simulation-based education using Kirkpatrick's evaluation model.

Methods: Five databases-PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost-were searched for studies published from January 2018 to November 2024. Eligibility criteria, defined using the PICOS framework, targeted studies comparing learning outcomes between active participant and observer roles among health professions students and practitioners. Methodological quality was appraised using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument, and findings were synthesized narratively. This review was registered in PROSPERO under registration number CRD42024611988.

Results: Of 648 records, 15 studies involving 1,799 participants met the inclusion criteria; role allocation was specifically reported for 644 active participants and 709 observers. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (13/15) and nursing programs (11/15). At Kirkpatrick Level 1, most studies reported no statistically significant between-role differences, although an active participant advantage emerged for emotional arousal. At Level 2, knowledge, skills, and most attitudinal outcomes did not differ significantly between roles; active participant advantages were observed for technical skills at delayed follow-up, affective competencies in palliative care, and perceived learning transfer. No study assessed Levels 3 or 4.

Conclusion: Most studies found no significant differences between observer and active participant roles at Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and 2. Generalizability across all health professions and settings is limited. Pedagogically appropriate use of the observer role supports learning outcomes and may expand access to simulation-based education.

医疗保健模拟教育中学习者角色对学习结果的影响:一项系统综述。
目的:本研究采用Kirkpatrick的评估模型,考察了学习者角色-主动参与者和观察者-对医疗保健模拟教育学习结果的影响。方法:检索pubmed、Scopus、Web of Science、ScienceDirect和ebscohost五个数据库,检索2018年1月至2024年11月发表的研究。使用PICOS框架定义的资格标准针对比较卫生专业学生和从业人员中积极参与者和观察者角色之间学习结果的研究。采用医学教育研究质量评价工具对方法学质量进行评价,并对评价结果进行叙述性综合。本综述已在PROSPERO注册,注册号为CRD42024611988。结果:在648项记录中,15项涉及1799名受试者的研究符合纳入标准;644名积极参与者和709名观察员的角色分配情况进行了具体报告。大多数研究是在高收入国家(13/15)和护理项目(11/15)进行的。在柯克帕特里克水平1,大多数研究报告没有统计显著的角色之间的差异,尽管积极参与者的优势出现在情绪唤起。在水平2,知识、技能和大多数态度结果在角色之间没有显著差异;在延迟随访的技术技能、姑息治疗的情感能力和感知学习迁移方面观察到积极参与者的优势。没有研究评估3级或4级。结论:大多数研究发现,在Kirkpatrick水平1和2中,观察者和积极参与者角色之间没有显著差异。在所有卫生专业和环境中的普遍性是有限的。在教学上适当地使用观察者角色可以支持学习成果,并可能扩大模拟教育的使用范围。
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
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书