@文章{信息:doi/10.2196/14676，作者=“Kononowicz, Andrzej A和Woodham, Luke A和Edelbring, Samuel和Stathakarou, Natalia和Davies, David和Saxena, Nakul和Tudor Car, Lorainne和carlstend - duke, Jan和Car, Josip和Zary, Nabil”，标题=“卫生专业教育中的虚拟患者模拟:《数字健康教育合作系统评价与meta分析》，期刊=《J Med Internet Res》，年=“2019”，月=“7月”，日=“02”，卷=“21”，数=“7”，页数=“e14676”，关键词=“计算机模拟”;专业教育;计算机辅助教学;系统评价;背景:虚拟患者是临床场景的交互式数字模拟，用于卫生专业教育。目前还没有关于这种教育形式有效性的经整理的证据。目的:本研究的目的是评估虚拟患者与传统教育、与传统教育融合、与其他类型数字教育的对比效果，并设计虚拟患者在卫生专业教育中的变体。感兴趣的结果是知识、技能、态度和满意度。方法:我们采用Cochrane方法对虚拟患者模拟在注册前和注册后卫生专业教育中的有效性进行了系统回顾。 We searched 7 databases from the year 1990 up to September 2018. No language restrictions were applied. We included randomized controlled trials and cluster randomized trials. We independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and then compared the information in pairs. We contacted study authors for additional information if necessary. All pooled analyses were based on random-effects models. Results: A total of 51 trials involving 4696 participants met our inclusion criteria. Furthermore, 25 studies compared virtual patients with traditional education, 11 studies investigated virtual patients as blended learning, 5 studies compared virtual patients with different forms of digital education, and 10 studies compared different design variants. The pooled analysis of studies comparing the effect of virtual patients to traditional education showed similar results for knowledge (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.11, 95{\%} CI −0.17 to 0.39, I2=74{\%}, n=927) and favored virtual patients for skills (SMD=0.90, 95{\%} CI 0.49 to 1.32, I2=88{\%}, n=897). Studies measuring attitudes and satisfaction predominantly used surveys with item-by-item comparison. Trials comparing virtual patients with different forms of digital education and design variants were not numerous enough to give clear recommendations. Several methodological limitations in the included studies and heterogeneity contributed to a generally low quality of evidence. Conclusions: Low to modest and mixed evidence suggests that when compared with traditional education, virtual patients can more effectively improve skills, and at least as effectively improve knowledge. The skills that improved were clinical reasoning, procedural skills, and a mix of procedural and team skills. We found evidence of effectiveness in both high-income and low- and middle-income countries, demonstrating the global applicability of virtual patients. Further research should explore the utility of different design variants of virtual patients. ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/14676", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2019/7/e14676/", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/14676", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31267981" }