Facilitated interactive video versus simulation-based training after a standardized lecture for basic life support in medical students: a randomized trial

Basic life support (BLS) is a core competency for medical students, yet simulation-based training can be resource intensive. Scalable alternatives such as facilitated interactive video may support learning, but evidence on skills retention is mixed. This study aimed to compare facilitated interactive video-based versus simulationbased training, each delivered as an adjunct to the same standardized lecture, on knowledge acquisition and mid-term skills retention in adult BLS education. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, fourth-year medical students at a public university were allocated (1:1) to either simulation-based training (scenario practice plus debriefing) or facilitated interactive video training (interactive animated video with embedded pauses and brief questions, delivered with real-time instructor feedback), after the same standardized 20-min lecture. Knowledge was assessed using a 20-item multiple-choice question test immediately before and after training. Skills were assessed at 3 weeks using a 30-item OSCE checklist. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in 3-week OSCE score; the secondary outcome was the between-group difference in knowledge gain (post-test minus pre-test). A total of 121 students were analyzed (video n = 60; simulation n = 61). Post-test scores increased significantly versus pre-test in both groups (both p < 0.001). Betweengroup differences were small and not statistically significant: post-test 90.00 (85.00–95.00) vs. 90.00(80.00–95.00) (p = 0.748); gain 15.00(10.00–20.00) vs. 10.00(5.00–20.00) (p = 0.058); and OSCE 24.00(22.00–26.00) vs. 24.00(21.00–26.00) (p = 0.385). In this cohort, we found no clear evidence of differences between videobased and simulation-based adjunct training—both delivered after an identical standardized lecture—in short-term knowledge gains or 3-week OSCE performance. Because a substantial portion of the observed knowledge gain is likely attributable to the shared lecture and test–retest exposure, the incremental contribution of each modality cannot be isolated. Nevertheless, facilitated interactive video warrants further investigation as a potential adjunct when simulation capacity is limited. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07368452).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Medical Education
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09128-4
Primary Topic
Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Facilitated interactive video versus simulation-based training after a standardized lecture for basic life support in medical students: a randomized trial

Süleyman Camgöz, Şeyda Ferah ARSLAN, Merve Yaman, Serkan Telli
BMC Medical Education
Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
article

Facilitated interactive video versus simulation-based training after a standardized lecture for basic life support in medical students: a randomized trial

Süleyman Camgöz, Şeyda Ferah ARSLAN, Merve Yaman, Serkan Telli
article en

Abstract

Basic life support (BLS) is a core competency for medical students, yet simulation-based training can be resource intensive. Scalable alternatives such as facilitated interactive video may support learning, but evidence on skills retention is mixed. This study aimed to compare facilitated interactive video-based versus simulationbased training, each delivered as an adjunct to the same standardized lecture, on knowledge acquisition and mid-term skills retention in adult BLS education. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, fourth-year medical students at a public university were allocated (1:1) to either simulation-based training (scenario practice plus debriefing) or facilitated interactive video training (interactive animated video with embedded pauses and brief questions, delivered with real-time instructor feedback), after the same standardized 20-min lecture. Knowledge was assessed using a 20-item multiple-choice question test immediately before and after training. Skills were assessed at 3 weeks using a 30-item OSCE checklist. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in 3-week OSCE score; the secondary outcome was the between-group difference in knowledge gain (post-test minus pre-test). A total of 121 students were analyzed (video n = 60; simulation n = 61). Post-test scores increased significantly versus pre-test in both groups (both p < 0.001). Betweengroup differences were small and not statistically significant: post-test 90.00 (85.00–95.00) vs. 90.00(80.00–95.00) (p = 0.748); gain 15.00(10.00–20.00) vs. 10.00(5.00–20.00) (p = 0.058); and OSCE 24.00(22.00–26.00) vs. 24.00(21.00–26.00) (p = 0.385). In this cohort, we found no clear evidence of differences between videobased and simulation-based adjunct training—both delivered after an identical standardized lecture—in short-term knowledge gains or 3-week OSCE performance. Because a substantial portion of the observed knowledge gain is likely attributable to the shared lecture and test–retest exposure, the incremental contribution of each modality cannot be isolated. Nevertheless, facilitated interactive video warrants further investigation as a potential adjunct when simulation capacity is limited. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07368452).

BMC Medical Education
Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi (TR), Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi (TR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.