IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v20y2011i23-24p3543-3552.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A cost–utility analysis of medium vs. high‐fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel Lapkin
  • Tracy Levett‐Jones

Abstract

Aims and objectives. This study presents a cost–utility analysis that compared medium‐ vs. high‐fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education. The analysis sought to determine whether the extra costs associated with high‐fidelity manikins can justify the differences, if any, in the outcomes of clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. Background. Investment in simulated learning environments has increased at an unprecedented pace. One of the driving forces is the potential for simulation experiences to improve students’ learning and engagement. A cost‐effectiveness analysis is needed to inform decisions related to investment in and use of simulation equipment. Method. Costs associated with the use of medium‐ and high‐fidelity manikins were calculated to determine the total cost for each. A cost‐utility analysis using multiattribute utility function was then conducted to combine costs and three outcomes of clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction from a quasi‐experimental study to arrive at an overall cost utility. Results. The cost analysis indicated that to obtain equivalent clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction scores, it required $AU1·21 (US$ 1·14; €0·85) using medium‐fidelity as compared with $AU6·28 (US$6·17; €4·40) for high‐fidelity human patient simulation manikins per student. Conclusion. Based on the results of the cost‐utility analysis, medium‐fidelity manikins are more cost effective requiring one‐fifth of the cost of high‐fidelity manikins to obtain the same effect on clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. Relevance to clinical practice. It is important that decision‐makers have an economic analysis that considers both the costs and outcomes of simulation to identify the approach that has the lowest cost for any particular outcome measure or the best outcomes for a particular cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel Lapkin & Tracy Levett‐Jones, 2011. "A cost–utility analysis of medium vs. high‐fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(23‐24), pages 3543-3552, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:23-24:p:3543-3552
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03843.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03843.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03843.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:23-24:p:3543-3552. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.