Protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the effect of applying gamification to simulation-based endoscopy training

Michael A Scaffidi, Rishad Khan, Catharine M Walsh, Matthew Pearl, Kathleen Winger, Ruben Kalaichandran, Peter Lin, Samir C Grover, Michael A Scaffidi, Rishad Khan, Catharine M Walsh, Matthew Pearl, Kathleen Winger, Ruben Kalaichandran, Peter Lin, Samir C Grover

Abstract

Background: Simulation-based training (SBT) provides a safe environment and effective means to enhance skills development. Simulation-based curricula have been developed for a number of procedures, including gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gamification, which is the application of game-design principles to non-game contexts, is an instructional strategy with potential to enhance learning. No studies have investigated the effects of a comprehensive gamification curriculum on the acquisition of endoscopic skills among novice endoscopists.

Methods and analysis: Thirty-six novice endoscopists will be randomised to one of two endoscopy SBT curricula: (1) the Conventional Curriculum Group, in which participants will receive 6 hours of one-on-one simulation training augmented with expert feedback and interlaced with 4 hours of small group teaching on the theory of colonoscopy or (2) the Gamified Curriculum Group, in which participants will receive the same curriculum with integration of the following game-design elements: a leaderboard summarising participants' performance, game narrative, achievement badges and rewards for top performance. In line with a progressive learning approach, simulation training for participants will progress from low to high complexity simulators, starting with a bench-top model and then moving to the EndoVR virtual reality simulator. Performance will be assessed at three points: pretraining, immediately post-training and 4-6 weeks after training. Assessments will take place on the simulator at all three time points and transfer of skills will be assessed during two clinical colonoscopies 4-6 weeks post-training. Mixed factorial ANOVAs will be used to determine if there is a performance difference between the two groups during simulated and clinical assessments.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained at St. Michael's Hospital. Results of this trial will be submitted for presentation at academic meetings and for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Trial registration number: NCT03176251.

Keywords: endoscopy; simulation.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study design. VR, virtual reality.

References

    1. Walsh CM, Sherlock ME, Ling SC, et al. . Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;6:CD008237 10.1002/14651858.CD008237.pub2
    1. Singh S, Sedlack RE, Cook DA. Effects of simulation-based training in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;12:1611–23. 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.01.037
    1. Grover SC, Garg A, Scaffidi MA, et al. . Impact of a simulation training curriculum on technical and nontechnical skills in colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:1072–9. 10.1016/j.gie.2015.04.008
    1. Grover SC, Scaffidi MA, Khan R, et al. . Progressive learning in endoscopy simulation training improves clinical performance: a blinded randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;86:881–9. 10.1016/j.gie.2017.03.1529
    1. Dedy NJ, Bonrath EM, Ahmed N, et al. . Structured training to improve nontechnical performance of junior surgical residents in the operating room: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2016;263:43–9. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001186
    1. Young OM, Parviainen K. Training obstetrics and gynecology residents to be effective communicators in the era of the 80-hour workweek: a pilot study. BMC Res Notes 2014;7:455 10.1186/1756-0500-7-455
    1. Walsh CM, Ling SC, Khanna N, et al. . Gastrointestinal endoscopy competency assessment tool: Reliability and validity evidence. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:1417–24. 10.1016/j.gie.2014.11.030
    1. Rutledge C, Walsh CM, Swinger N, et al. . Gamification in action: theoretical and practical considerations for medical educators. Acad Med 2018;93:1014-1020 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002183
    1. Deterding S, Dixon D, Khaled R, et al. . From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, ACM 2011:9–15.
    1. Yunyongying P. Gamification: Implications for Curricular Design. J Grad Med Educ 2014;6:410–2. 10.4300/JGME-D-13-00406.1
    1. Almarshedi A, Wanick V, Wills GB, et al. . Ranchhod A. Gamification and Behaviour In: Steiglitz S, Lattemann C, Robra-Bissantz S, Zarnekow R, Brockmann T, eds Using Game Elements in Serious Contexts. Springer, 2017:19–30.
    1. Edwards EA, Lumsden J, Rivas C, et al. . Gamification for health promotion: systematic review of behaviour change techniques in smartphone apps. BMJ Open 2016;6:e012447 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012447
    1. Johnson D, Deterding S, Kuhn KA, et al. . Gamification for health and wellbeing: A systematic review of the literature. Internet Interv 2016;6:89–106. 10.1016/j.invent.2016.10.002
    1. Sardi L, Idri A, Fernández-Alemán JL. A systematic review of gamification in e-Health. J Biomed Inform 2017;71:31–48. 10.1016/j.jbi.2017.05.011
    1. McCoy L, Lewis JH, Dalton D. Gamification and multimedia for medical education: a landscape review. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2016;116:22–34. 10.7556/jaoa.2016.003
    1. MacKinnon RJ, Stoeter R, Doherty C, et al. . Self-motivated learning with gamification improves infant CPR performance, a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn 2015;1:71–6. 10.1136/bmjstel-2015-000061
    1. Hashimoto DA, Gomez ED, Beyer-Berjot L, et al. . A randomized controlled trial to assess the effects of competition on the development of laparoscopic surgical skills. J Surg Educ 2015;72:1077–84. 10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.06.005
    1. Khan R, Scaffidi MA, Walsh CM, et al. . Simulation-based training of non-technical skills in colonoscopy: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc 2017;6:e153 10.2196/resprot.7690
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. . SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:200–7. 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583
    1. Walsh CM, Coopper MA, Rabeneck L, et al. . Bench-top versus virtual reality simulation training in Endoscopy: Expertise discrimination. CAME 2008.
    1. Ekkelenkamp VE, Koch AD, de Man RA, et al. . Training and competence assessment in GI endoscopy: a systematic review. Gut 2016;65:607–15. 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307173
    1. Triantafyllou K, Lazaridis LD, Dimitriadis GD. Virtual reality simulators for gastrointestinal endoscopy training. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014;6:6–12. 10.4253/wjge.v6.i1.6
    1. van Dongen KW, Verleisdonk EJ, Schijven MP, et al. . Will the Playstation generation become better endoscopic surgeons? Surg Endosc 2011;25:2275–80. 10.1007/s00464-010-1548-2
    1. Harris PB, Houston JM. A reliability analysis of the revised competitiveness index. Psychol Rep 2010;106:870–4. 10.2466/pr0.106.3.870-874
    1. Pena G, Altree M, Field J, et al. . Surgeons’ and trainees’ perceived self-efficacy in operating theatre non-technical skills. Br J Surg 2015;102:708–15. 10.1002/bjs.9787
    1. Tondello GF, Wehbe RR, Diamond L, et al. . The gamification user types hexad scale. Proc 2016:229–43.
    1. Scaffidi MA, Grover SC, Carnahan H, et al. . A prospective comparison of live and video-based assessments of colonoscopy performance. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87:688–94. 10.1016/j.gie.2017.08.020
    1. Kneebone R, Nestel D, Yadollahi F, et al. . Assessing procedural skills in context: Exploring the feasibility of an Integrated Procedural Performance Instrument (IPPI). Med Educ 2006;40:1105–14. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02612.x
    1. Hales BM, Pronovost PJ. The checklist—a tool for error management and performance improvement. J Crit Care 2006;21:231–5. 10.1016/j.jcrc.2006.06.002
    1. Haynie WJ. Effects of test taking on retention learning in technology education: a meta-analysis. Journal of Technology Education 2007;18:24–36. 10.21061/jte.v18i2.a.2
    1. Huang B, Hew KF. Do points, badges and leaderboards increase learning and activity: A quasi-experiment on the effects of gamification. 23rd Int Conf Comput Educ 2015:275–80.
    1. Gnauk B, Dannecker L, Hahmann M. Leveraging gamification in demand dispatch systems. Proc 2012 Jt EDBT/ICDT Work—EDBT-ICDT’ 12 2012;103 10.1145/2320765.2320799
    1. Barton JR, Corbett S, van der Vleuten CP. English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme UK Joint Advisory Group for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The validity and reliability of a direct observation of procedural skills assessment tool: assessing colonoscopic skills of senior endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:591–7. 10.1016/j.gie.2011.09.053
    1. Rostom A, Ross ED, Dubé C, et al. . Development and validation of a nurse-assessed patient comfort score for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77:255–61. 10.1016/j.gie.2012.10.003
    1. Sewell JL, Boscardin CK, Young JQ, et al. . Measuring cognitive load during procedural skills training with colonoscopy as an exemplar. Med Educ 2016;50:682–92. 10.1111/medu.12965
    1. Ali A, Subhi Y, Ringsted C, et al. . Gender differences in the acquisition of surgical skills: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 2015;29:3065–73. 10.1007/s00464-015-4092-2
    1. LeBlanc VR, Bould MD, McNaughton N, et al. . Simulation in Postgraduate Medical Education, 2011.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever