↓ Skip to main content

Comparative effectiveness of a serious game and an e-module to support patient safety knowledge and awareness

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
378 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative effectiveness of a serious game and an e-module to support patient safety knowledge and awareness
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0836-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary E. W. Dankbaar, Olivier Richters, Cor J. Kalkman, Gerrie Prins, Olle T. J. ten Cate, Jeroen J. G. van Merrienboer, Stephanie C. E. Schuit

Abstract

Serious games have the potential to teach complex cognitive skills in an engaging way, at relatively low costs. Their flexibility in use and scalability makes them an attractive learning tool, but more research is needed on the effectiveness of serious games compared to more traditional formats such e-modules. We investigated whether undergraduate medical students developed better knowledge and awareness and were more motivated after learning about patient-safety through a serious game than peers who studied the same topics using an e-module. Fourth-year medical students were randomly assigned to either a serious game that included video-lectures, biofeedback exercises and patient missions (n = 32) or an e-module, that included text-based lectures on the same topics (n = 34). A third group acted as a historical control-group without extra education (n = 37). After the intervention, which took place during the clinical introduction course, before the start of the first rotation, all students completed a knowledge test, a self-efficacy test and a motivation questionnaire. During the following 10-week clinical rotation they filled out weekly questionnaires on patient-safety awareness and stress. The results showed patient safety knowledge had equally improved in the game group and e-module group compared to controls, who received no extra education. Average learning-time was 3 h for the game and 1 h for the e-module-group. The serious game was evaluated as more engaging; the e-module as more easy to use. During rotations, students in the three groups reported low and similar levels of patient-safety awareness and stress. Students who had treated patients successfully during game missions experienced higher self-efficacy and less stress during their rotation than students who treated patients unsuccessfully. Video-lectures (in a game) and text-based lectures (in an e-module) can be equally effective in developing knowledge on specific topics. Although serious games are strongly engaging for students and stimulate them to study longer, they do not necessarily result in better performance in patient safety issues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 378 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 377 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 15%
Student > Bachelor 43 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 10%
Researcher 28 7%
Lecturer 27 7%
Other 66 17%
Unknown 123 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 18%
Psychology 33 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 8%
Social Sciences 24 6%
Computer Science 20 5%
Other 61 16%
Unknown 140 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,174,980
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,239
of 3,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,414
of 424,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#19
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 424,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.