Non-technical skills training in healthcare frequently uses high-fidelity simulation followed by a facilitated discussion known as debriefing. This type of training is mandatory for anaesthesia training in Australia and New Zealand. Debriefing by a skilled facilitator is thought to be essential for new learning through feedback and reflective processes. Key elements of effective debriefing need to be clearly identified to ensure that the training is evidence-based. We undertook a systematic review of empirical studies where elements of debriefing have been systematically manipulated during non-technical skills training. Eight publications met the inclusion criteria, but seven of these were of limited generalisability. The only study that was generalisable found that debriefing by novice instructors using a script improved team leader performance in paediatric resuscitation. The remaining seven publications were limited by the small number of debriefers included in each study and these reports were thus analogous to case reports. Generally, performance improved after debriefing by a skilled facilitator. However, the debriefer provided no specific advantage over other post-experience educational interventions. Acknowledging their limitations, these studies found that performance improved after self-led debrief, no debrief (with experienced practitioners), standardised multimedia debrief or after reviewing a DVD of the participants' own eye-tracking. There was no added performance improvement when review of a video recording was added to facilitator-led debriefing. One study reported no performance improvement after debriefing. Without empirical evidence that is specific to the healthcare domain, theories of learning from education and psychology should continue to inform practices and teaching for effective debriefing.
With systematic instruction, children with ASD and severe communication impairment can learn to use an iPad-based SGD to complete multi-step communication sequences that involve requesting and social communication functions.
The breadth of available non-pharmacological interventions for autistic children, with varying evidence for efficacy summarised in multiple systematic reviews, creates challenges for parents, practitioners, and policymakers in navigating the research evidence. In this article, we report the findings of an umbrella review of 58 systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions for autistic children (aged 0–12 years). Positive therapeutic effects were identified for Behavioural interventions, Developmental interventions, Naturalistic Developmental Behavioural Interventions, Technology-based interventions, and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy across several child and family outcomes. Positive effects for certain practices within Sensory-based interventions and ‘other’ interventions were limited to select child and family outcomes. Both inconsistent and null intervention effects were found for Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication-handicapped Children, and Animal-assisted interventions across outcomes. The possible influence of child (chronological age, core autism characteristics, and related skills) and delivery (agent, mode, format, and amount) characteristics on intervention effects was rarely examined, and inconsistent where reported. Twenty-seven systematic reviews (47%) were rated as ‘high’ quality. Few systematic reviews examined children’s participation and quality of life or adverse effects. The findings highlight the need for individualised evidence-based decision-making when selecting interventions for autistic children. Lay abstract What is already known about the topic? The delivery of evidence-based interventions is an important part of the clinical pathway for many autistic children and their families. However, parents, practitioners, and policymakers face challenges making evidence informed decisions, due to the wide variety of interventions available and the large, and often inconsistent, body of evidence regarding their effectiveness. What this paper adds? This is a comprehensive umbrella review, also known as a ‘review of reviews’, which examined the range of interventions available, the evidence for their effectiveness, and whether effects were influenced by factors relating to individual children (e.g. chronological age, core autism characteristics, and related skills) or the ways interventions were delivered (by whom and in what setting, format, mode, and amount). There was evidence for positive therapeutic effects for some, but not all, interventions. No single intervention had a positive effect for all child and family outcomes of interest. The influence of child and delivery characteristics on effects was unclear. Implications for practice, research, and policy The findings provide parents, practitioners, and policymakers with a synthesis of the research evidence to inform decision-making and highlight the importance of individualised approaches in the absence of clear and consistent evidence. The findings also highlight the need to improve consistency and completeness in reporting of research studies, so that the same questions may be answered more comprehensively in the future.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.