Virtual PatientDebriefingNCT06677398
Three Debriefing Methods in Virtual Patient Simulation
A study testing Debriefing Method 1, Debriefing Method VP and Debriefing Method 2 in people with Virtual Patient and Debriefing Method, run by Saglik Bilimleri Universitesi Gulhane Tip Fakultesi at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
In simulation-based training, the debriefing session is considered a cornerstone of learning. Therefore, this study aims to compare two different methods of debriefing sessions. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Virtual Patient, Debriefing Method, Nursing Student
- What is being tested?
- Debriefing Method 1, Debriefing Method VP and Debriefing Method 2
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 109 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 1 Nov 2024to 29 Jan 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Being 4th grade nursing student at a nursing faculty
Who cannot join
- Not having participated in simulation before and not having practiced with a virtual patient.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
University of Health Sciences Turkey, Gulhane Faculty of Nursing
Ankara, Etlik
About this study
Official title: Three Debriefing Methods in Virtual Patient Simulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
In simulation-based training, the debriefing session is considered a cornerstone of learning. Therefore, this study aims to compare two different methods of debriefing sessions.
- Conditions
- Virtual Patient, Debriefing Method, Nursing Student
- Being tested
- Debriefing Method 1, Debriefing Method VP, Debriefing Method 2
- Keywords
- Debriefing, Feedback, Effectiveness, Patient Simulation, Virtual Systems, Nursing Students
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Debriefing Method 1Other
The researchers used a debriefing method that they chose after a virtual simulation
Debriefing Method VPOther
The researchers used the debriefing method that virtual patient simulator presents
Debriefing Method 2Other
The researchers used a debriefing method that they chose after a virtual simulation
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group A | Experimental | Experimental group that used one of the debriefing methods Receives: Other: Debriefing Method 1 |
| Group B | Experimental | Experimental group that used one of the debriefing methods Receives: Other: Debriefing Method 2 |
| Group C | Other | A control group that used none of the debriefing methods Receives: Other: Debriefing Method VP |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Hypothesis 1
There is a difference in the Simulation Effectiveness Tool scores between students using debriefing methods.
Measured: 1 week
Hypothesis 2
There is a difference in the Debriefing Experience Scale scores between students using debriefing methods.
Measured: 1 week
Hypothesis 3
There is a difference in The Student Satisfaction and Self-confidence scores between students using debriefing methods.
Measured: 1 week
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Nov 2024
- Study start1 Nov 2024
- Primary completion29 Jan 2025
- Study completion29 Jan 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Virtual PatientStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Parallel group-randomized trial
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 109 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Saglik Bilimleri Universitesi Gulhane Tip Fakultesi
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Gül ŞAHİN KARADUMAN, Saglik Bilimleri Universitesi Gulhane Tip Fakultesi
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06677398
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Date: 10.09.2024 No:2024-435
- Acronym
- Debriefing
- Status last verified
- Feb 2025
- First submitted
- 2 Nov 2024
- Last updated
- 11 Feb 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Researchers believe that it is important to share the data of the study with other researchers following the completion of the data.
Publications
Dreifuerst, K.T., 2015. Getting started with debriefing for meaningful learning. Clin Simul Nurs 11, 268-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.01.005
Decker, S., Alinier, G., Crawford, S.B., Gordon, R.M., Jenkins, D., Wilson, C., 2021. Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best PracticeTM The Debriefing Process. Clin Simul Nurs 58, 27-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.011
Cheng A, Kessler D, Mackinnon R, Chang TP, Nadkarni VM, Hunt EA, Duval-Arnould J, Lin Y, Cook DA, Pusic M, Hui J, Moher D, Egger M, Auerbach M; International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research, and Education (INSPIRE) Reporting Guidelines Investigators. Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements. Adv Simul (Lond). 2016 Jul 25;1:25. doi: 10.1186/s41077-016-0025-y. eCollection 2016.
PubMed 29449994
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Feb 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Three Debriefing Methods in Virtual Patient Simulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06677398
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Debriefing / Date: 10.09.2024 No:2024-435
- Conditions
- Virtual Patient, Debriefing Method, Nursing Student
- Keywords
- Debriefing, Feedback, Effectiveness, Patient Simulation, Virtual Systems, Nursing Students
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 109 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Saglik Bilimleri Universitesi Gulhane Tip FakultesiUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Nov 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 29 Jan 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 29 Jan 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Nov 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
In simulation-based training, the debriefing session is considered a cornerstone of learning. Therefore, this study aims to compare two different methods of debriefing sessions.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Parallel group-randomized trial
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group A | Experimental | Other: Debriefing Method 1Experimental group that used one of the debriefing methods |
| Group B | Experimental | Other: Debriefing Method 2Experimental group that used one of the debriefing methods |
| Group C | Other | Other: Debriefing Method VPA control group that used none of the debriefing methods |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Being 4th grade nursing student at a nursing faculty
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Not having participated in simulation before and not having practiced with a virtual patient.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Debriefing Method 1The researchers used a debriefing method that they chose after a virtual simulation | Other | Group A |
| Debriefing Method VPThe researchers used the debriefing method that virtual patient simulator presents | Other | Group C |
| Debriefing Method 2The researchers used a debriefing method that they chose after a virtual simulation | Other | Group B |
Primary outcome
Hypothesis 1
Time frame: 1 week
There is a difference in the Simulation Effectiveness Tool scores between students using debriefing methods.
Hypothesis 2
Time frame: 1 week
There is a difference in the Debriefing Experience Scale scores between students using debriefing methods.
Hypothesis 3
Time frame: 1 week
There is a difference in The Student Satisfaction and Self-confidence scores between students using debriefing methods.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Feb 2025.
- BackgroundDreifuerst, K.T., 2015. Getting started with debriefing for meaningful learning. Clin Simul Nurs 11, 268-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.01.005
- BackgroundDecker, S., Alinier, G., Crawford, S.B., Gordon, R.M., Jenkins, D., Wilson, C., 2021. Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best PracticeTM The Debriefing Process. Clin Simul Nurs 58, 27-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.011
- Results publication: PubMed 29449994Cheng A, Kessler D, Mackinnon R, Chang TP, Nadkarni VM, Hunt EA, Duval-Arnould J, Lin Y, Cook DA, Pusic M, Hui J, Moher D, Egger M, Auerbach M; International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research, and Education (INSPIRE) Reporting Guidelines Investigators. Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements. Adv Simul (Lond). 2016 Jul 25;1:25. doi: 10.1186/s41077-016-0025-y. eCollection 2016.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Researchers believe that it is important to share the data of the study with other researchers following the completion of the data.
Related trials for Virtual Patient
Recruiting
Virtual Reality Intervention to Improve Psychological Symptom Burden for Cancer Patients Undergoing Treatment
Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder
Not yet recruiting
Evidence-based, Customized, Motion-recognition Rehabilitation System Development for Bed-ridden Patients - Validation of Effectiveness: Rehabit: Swim
ICU-acquired Weakness
RecruitingPhase 1
Rehabilitation Through Virtual Immersion & Integrated Exposure for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (ReVIVE for mTBI)
Traumatic Brain Injuries, TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury)
Recruiting
Cycling Within an Interactive and Immersive Virtual Environment During Critical Illness: a Patient-centred Approach for Lower Limb Rehabilitation
Critical Illness
Not yet recruiting
Virtual Reality Intervention to Improve Comfort in Hospitalized Hematology Patients.
Hematologic Cancer
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Debriefing Method 1, Debriefing Method VP and Debriefing Method 2 in people with Virtual Patient and Debriefing Method, run by Saglik Bilimleri Universitesi Gulhane Tip Fakultesi at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Feb 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Hypothesis 1 (time frame: 1 week). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06677398, which also lists 3 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Feb 2025.