| Title |
Effect of simulated patient death on emergency worker’s anxiety: a cluster randomized trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-016-0163-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. L. Philippon, J. Bokobza, B. Bloom, A. Hurbault, A. Duguet, B. Riou, Y. Freund |
| Abstract |
Simulation-based teaching offers promising and diverse teaching possibilities. We aim to assess whether the death of the manikin increased anxiety amongst learner compared to similar simulation-based course where the manikin stays alive. We conducted a cluster randomized study amongst multidisciplinary teams of emergency workers. Teams of physicians, nurses, and healthcare assistants were randomly assigned to participate in a simulation-based course where the simulated patient died (death group) or not (life group). We assessed anxiety at 1 month after the teaching using Spielberger STAI-state anxiety questionnaire. We compared reduction of anxiety when facing a life-threatening situation in both groups. We included 25 teams for a total of 129 participants. We analysed 63 participants in the death group and 57 in the life group. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups, including baseline anxiety (STAI-state score 39.6 (7.8) in the death group vs 38.6 (7.1) in the life group). We report a significant reduction in both groups 1 month after the training: 6.6 (7.8) vs 6 (8.0), mean difference 0.5 (-2.4; 3.4). At 3 months, we report a significant greater reduction of anxiety in the death group (mean difference 4 [0.1; 7.9]). We observed in our sample that unexpected simulated patient death did not increase anxiety amongst multidisciplinary emergency workers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 40% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 10% |
| France | 1 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 30% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 21% |
| Psychology | 3 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,267,679
of 25,376,646 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#292
of 1,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,805
of 365,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,376,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,189 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.