Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
We developed EmergenCSim™, a serious game (SG) with an embedded assessment, to teach and assess performing general anesthesia for cesarean delivery. We hypothesized that first-year anesthesiology trainees (CA-1) playing EmergenCSim™ would yield superior knowledge scores versus controls, and EmergenCSim™ and high-fidelity simulation (HFS) assessments would correlate.
Methods
This was a single-blinded, longitudinal randomized experiment. Following a lecture (week 3), trainees took a multiple-choice question (MCQ) test (week 4) and were randomized to play EmergenCSim™ (N = 26) or a non-content specific SG (N = 23). Participants repeated the MCQ test (week 8). Between month 3 and 12, all repeated the MCQ test, played EmergenCSim™ and participated in HFS of an identical scenario. HFS performance was rated using a behavior checklist.
Results
There was no significant change in mean MCQ scores over time between groups F (2, 94) = 0.870, p = 0.42, and no main effect on MCQ scores, F (1, 47) = 1.110, p = 0.20. There was significant three-way interaction between time, gender and group, F (2, 90) = 3.042, p = 0.053, and significant two-way interaction between gender and time on MCQ scores, F (2, 94) = 107.77, p = 0.036; outcomes improved over time among males. There was no group difference in HFS checklist and SG scores. Both instruments demonstrated good internal consistency reliability but non-significant score correlation.
Conclusions
Playing EmergenCSim™ once did not improve MCQ scores; nonetheless scores slightly improved among males over time, suggesting gender may impact learning outcomes with SGs.
Funder
Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献