A meta-analysis was performed to assess the Effect Size (ES) from randomized studies comparing the effect of educational interventions in which Virtual patients (VPs) were used either as an alternative method or additive to usual curriculum versus interventions based on more traditional methods. Meta-analysis was designed, conducted and reported according to QUORUM statement on quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Twelve randomized controlled studies were retrieved, assessing a total of 25 different outcomes. Under a random-effect model, meta-analysis showed a clear positive pooled overall effect for VPs compared to other educational methods (Odds Ratio: 239; 95% C.I. 1.48 divided by 3.84). A positive effect has been documented both when VPs have been used as an additive resource (O.R.: 2.55; C.I. 1.36 divided by 4.79) and when they have been compared as an alternative to a more traditional method (O.R.: 2.19; 1.06 divided by 4.52). When grouped for type of outcome, the pooled ES for studies addressing communication skills and ethical reasoning was lower than for clinical reasoning outcome. There is evidence that VPs are effective but further research is needed to clarify which is their best possible integration in curricula and their value and cost/benefit ratio with respect to other active learning methods. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Efficacy of virtual patients in medical education: A meta-analysis of randomized studies / Consorti, Fabrizio; Rosaria, Mancuso; Martina, Nocioni; Annalisa, Piccolo. - In: COMPUTERS & EDUCATION. - ISSN 0360-1315. - STAMPA. - 59:3(2012), pp. 1001-1008. [10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.017]

Efficacy of virtual patients in medical education: A meta-analysis of randomized studies

CONSORTI, Fabrizio;
2012

Abstract

A meta-analysis was performed to assess the Effect Size (ES) from randomized studies comparing the effect of educational interventions in which Virtual patients (VPs) were used either as an alternative method or additive to usual curriculum versus interventions based on more traditional methods. Meta-analysis was designed, conducted and reported according to QUORUM statement on quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Twelve randomized controlled studies were retrieved, assessing a total of 25 different outcomes. Under a random-effect model, meta-analysis showed a clear positive pooled overall effect for VPs compared to other educational methods (Odds Ratio: 239; 95% C.I. 1.48 divided by 3.84). A positive effect has been documented both when VPs have been used as an additive resource (O.R.: 2.55; C.I. 1.36 divided by 4.79) and when they have been compared as an alternative to a more traditional method (O.R.: 2.19; 1.06 divided by 4.52). When grouped for type of outcome, the pooled ES for studies addressing communication skills and ethical reasoning was lower than for clinical reasoning outcome. There is evidence that VPs are effective but further research is needed to clarify which is their best possible integration in curricula and their value and cost/benefit ratio with respect to other active learning methods. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2012
distance education and telelearning; educazione medica; evaluation of cal systems; multimedia/hypermedia systems; simulation; simulations
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Efficacy of virtual patients in medical education: A meta-analysis of randomized studies / Consorti, Fabrizio; Rosaria, Mancuso; Martina, Nocioni; Annalisa, Piccolo. - In: COMPUTERS & EDUCATION. - ISSN 0360-1315. - STAMPA. - 59:3(2012), pp. 1001-1008. [10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.017]
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/494733
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 123
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 98
social impact