Frontiers in medicine · 2026
Comparing the effectiveness of online and onsite training for simulation facilitator: a quasi-experiment.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tong Lai Kun, Au Mio Leng, Yang Bing Xiang, Li Ting, Li Yue Yi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: With the increasing integration of simulation-based education in healthcare, the role of simulation facilitators has become pivotal. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of online versus onsite training for simulation facilitators.
METHODS: A quasi-experimental design was employed. Participants were assigned to either an online training group or an onsite training group based on their availability and preference, with both groups receiving identical and synchronized training content. Data were collected at baseline and immediately post-intervention.
RESULTS: Of 219 recruited participants, 100 completing the intervention and evaluation (78 online, 22 onsite). Both groups improved significantly in core competencies, with no significant difference in the percentage change between the groups. The online training group demonstrated significant enhancements in debriefing skills and simulation-based education self-efficacy, whereas the onsite group showed improvements that did not reach statistical significance. However, adjusted analyses revealed no statistically significant between-group differences in the percentage change from baseline for simulation facilitator core competency, debriefing skills, simulation-based education self-efficacy, or willingness to use simulation-based education.
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that online training is as effective as onsite training in improving simulation facilitator core competency and willingness to use simulation-based education. This suggests that online training could be a viable alternative to onsite training.
METHODS: A quasi-experimental design was employed. Participants were assigned to either an online training group or an onsite training group based on their availability and preference, with both groups receiving identical and synchronized training content. Data were collected at baseline and immediately post-intervention.
RESULTS: Of 219 recruited participants, 100 completing the intervention and evaluation (78 online, 22 onsite). Both groups improved significantly in core competencies, with no significant difference in the percentage change between the groups. The online training group demonstrated significant enhancements in debriefing skills and simulation-based education self-efficacy, whereas the onsite group showed improvements that did not reach statistical significance. However, adjusted analyses revealed no statistically significant between-group differences in the percentage change from baseline for simulation facilitator core competency, debriefing skills, simulation-based education self-efficacy, or willingness to use simulation-based education.
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that online training is as effective as onsite training in improving simulation facilitator core competency and willingness to use simulation-based education. This suggests that online training could be a viable alternative to onsite training.