• Benjamin Zendejas, Amy T Wang, Ryan Brydges, Stanley J Hamstra, and David A Cook.
• Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. zendejas.benjamin@mayo.edu
• Surgery. 2013 Feb 1;153(2):160-76.

BackgroundThe costs involved with technology-enhanced simulation remain unknown. Appraising the value of simulation-based medical education (SBME) requires complete accounting and reporting of cost. We sought to summarize the quantity and quality of studies that contain an economic analysis of SBME for the training of health professions learners.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011. Articles reporting original research in any language evaluating the cost of simulation, in comparison with nonstimulation instruction or another simulation intervention, for training practicing and student physicians, nurses, and other health professionals were selected. Reviewers working in duplicate evaluated study quality and abstracted information on learners, instructional design, cost elements, and outcomes.ResultsFrom a pool of 10,903 articles we identified 967 comparative studies. Of these, 59 studies (6.1%) reported any cost elements and 15 (1.6%) provided information on cost compared with another instructional approach. We identified 11 cost components reported, most often the cost of the simulator (n = 42 studies; 71%) and training materials (n = 21; 36%). Ten potential cost components were never reported. The median number of cost components reported per study was 2 (range, 1-9). Only 12 studies (20%) reported cost in the Results section; most reported it in the Discussion (n = 34; 58%).ConclusionCost reporting in SBME research is infrequent and incomplete. We propose a comprehensive model for accounting and reporting costs in SBME.Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

13 keywords...

hide…