Health care trainees lack opportunities to practice breast assessment and clinical skills with patients, making breast models significant for hands-on training. Insufficient training leads to low competence across practitioners in breast health areas of practice, including clinical lactation. The aim of this review was to describe types of breast models used to teach clinical skills of the breast across breast health areas. The secondary aims were to describe education interventions that included each model and identify whether multiple skin tones were available in models.
Methods:
Authors conducted a scoping review to identify which types of breast models are used to teach clinical skills across breast health areas of practice and determine gaps in literature regarding how clinical lactation skills are taught. The literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, MedLine, and ProQuest. Inclusion criteria were students/professionals engaging in breast model simulation. Eighteen studies were reviewed. Authors extracted data on participants, breast health area, breast model, intervention, evaluation, general outcomes, skin tone, and research design.
Results:
The most common skill area was clinical breast exam (n = 7), while least was breastfeeding education (n = 1). Most models were commercial (n = 12). Zero studies described skin tone. Generally, breast model simulations were correlated with increased clinical skills and confidence regardless of model used.
Conclusions:
Despite demonstrated gain of skills, this review reveals inconsistent use of breast models and evaluation, exclusion of diverse skin tones, and lack of breast models reported to teach clinical lactation skills.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JhaV, SetnaZ, Al-HityA, et al.Patient involvement in teaching and assessing intimate examination skills: A systematic review. Med Educ, 2010; 44(4):347–357; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03608.x
2.
MeekJY, NelsonJM, HanleyLE, et al.Landscape analysis of breastfeeding-related physician education in the United States. Breastfeed Med, 2020; 15(6):401–411; doi: 10.1089/bfm.2019.0263
3.
TuW, JoeBN. Trainee perspectives on breast imaging training during COVID-19: Where we are now. Radiol Imaging Cancer, 2021; 3(1):e210011; doi: 10.1148/rycan.2021210011
4.
VeitchD, GoossensR, OwenH, et al.Evaluation of conventional training in clinical breast examination (CBE). Work, 2019; 62(4):647–656; doi: 10.3233/WOR-192899
HeenaH, DurraniS, RiazM, et al.Knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to breast cancer screening among female health care professionals: A cross sectional study. BMC Women's Health, 2019; 19(1):122; doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0819-x
7.
VictoraCG, BahlR, BarrosAJD, et al.Breastfeeding in the 21st century: Epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. Lancet, 2016; 387(10017):475–490; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01024-7
8.
OgburnT, EspeyE, LeemanL, et al.A breastfeeding curriculum for residents and medical students: A multidisciplinary approach. J Hum Lact, 2005; 21(4):458–464; doi: 10.1177/0890334405280990
9.
ZivA, Ben-DavidS, ZivM. Simulation based medical education: An opportunity to learn from errors. Med Teach, 2005; 27(3):193–199; doi: 10.1080/01421590500126718
10.
SherwoodRJ, FrancisG. The effect of mannequin fidelity on the achievement of learning outcomes for nursing, midwifery and allied healthcare practitioners: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today, 2018; 69:81–94; doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.06.025
11.
SadovnikovaA, ChuisanoSA, MaK, et al.Development and evaluation of a high-fidelity lactation simulation model for health professional breastfeeding education. Int Breastfeed J, 2020; 15(1):8; doi: 10.1186/s13006-020-0254-5
12.
AndersonOS, WeirauchK, RoperR, et al.The efficacy of hybrid telesimulation with standardized patients in teaching medical students clinical lactation skills: A pilot study. Breastfeed Med, 2021; 16(4):332–337; doi: 10.1089/bfm.2020.0253
13.
DilaveriC, SzostekJ, WangA, et al.Simulation training for breast and pelvic physical examination: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG, 2013; 120(10):1171–1182; doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12289
14.
ChuisanoSA, AndersonOS. Assessing application-based breastfeeding education for physicians and nurses: A scoping review. J Hum Lact, 2020; 36(4):699–709; doi: 10.1177/0890334419848414
15.
SwertsM, WesthofE, BogaertsA, et al.Supporting breast-feeding women from the perspective of the midwife: A systematic review of the literature. Midwifery, 2016; 37:32–40; doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2016.02.016
16.
McFaddenA, GavineA, RenfrewMJ, et al.Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017; 2(2):CD001141; doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001141.pub5
17.
American Academy of Family PracticePhysicians. Breastfeeding, Family Physicians Supporting (Position Paper). 2018.
18.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Optimizing support for breastfeeding as part of obstetric practice. Obstetr Gynecol, 2016; 132(4):e187–e196.
19.
GrabowskiA, AndersonOS, ZielinskiR, et al.Midwifery students better approximate their self-efficacy in clinical lactation after reflecting in and on their performance in the LactSim OSCE. Adv Simul, 2020; 5(1):28; doi: 10.1186/s41077-020-00143-z
20.
HellingsP, HoweC. Assessment of breastfeeding knowledge of nurse practitioners and nurse-midwives. J Midwifery Women's Health, 2000; 45(3):264–270; doi: 10.1016/S1526-9523(00)00010-6
21.
TaverasEM, LiR, Grummer-StrawnL, et al.Opinions and practices of clinicians associated with continuation of exclusive breastfeeding. Pediatrics, 2004; 113(4):e283–e290; doi: 10.1542/peds.113.4.e283
22.
DodgsonJE.Critical analysis: The often-missing step in conducting literature review research. J Hum Lact, 2021; 37(1):27–32; doi: 10.1177/0890334420977815
23.
AngaritaFA, PriceB, CasteloM, et al.Improving the competency of medical students in clinical breast examination through a standardized simulation and multimedia-based curriculum. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2019; 173(2):439–445; doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4993-6
24.
GilesEM, ParangeN, KnightB. An interprofessional learning workshop for mammography and sonography students focusing on breast cancer care and management via simulation: A pilot study. Acad Radiol, 2017; 24(8):962–967; doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.02.015
25.
JainS, FoxK, van den BergP, et al.Simulation training impacts student confidence and knowledge for breast and pelvic examination. Med Sci Educ, 2014; 24(1):59–64; doi: 10.1007/s40670-014-0023-4
26.
KazanR, CourteauB, CyrS, et al.A novel mammoplasty part-task trainer for simulation of breast augmentation: Description and Evaluation. Simul Healthcare, 2016; 11(1):60–64; doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000124.
27.
KazanR, Viezel-MathieuA, CyrS, et al.The Montreal Augmentation Mammaplasty Operation (MAMO) simulator: An alternative method to train and assess competence in breast augmentation procedures. Aesth Surg J, 2018; 38(8):835–849; doi: 10.1093/asj/sjx267
28.
LauferS, RayRD, D'AngeloA-LD, et al.Use of simulators to explore specialty recommendation for a palpable breast mass. Am J Surg, 2015; 210(4):618–623; doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.05.013
29.
LeffDR, PetrouG, MavroveliS, et al.Validation of an oncoplastic breast simulator for assessment of technical skills in wide local excision. Br J Surg, 2016; 103(3):207–217; doi: 10.1002/bjs.9970
30.
MazurkiewiczR, RyanE, RackmanA. Teaching internal medicine residents to perform breast and pelvic exams: A simulation curriculum module. MedEdPORTAL, 2016; 12:10420; doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10420
31.
MengK, LipsonJA. Utilizing a PACS-integrated ultrasound-guided breast biopsy simulation exercise to reinforce the ACR practice guideline for ultrasound-guided percutaneous breast interventional procedures during radiology residency. Acad Radiol, 2011; 18(10):1324–1328; doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.06.003
32.
MurthySS, NtirenganyaF, ScottJW, et al.A randomized cross-over trial focused on breast core needle biopsy skill acquisition and safety using high fidelity versus low fidelity simulation models in Rwanda. J Surg Educ, 2020; 77(2):404–412; doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.11.014
33.
TerzioğluF, Yücel Ç, KoçG, et al.A new strategy in nursing education: From hybrid simulation to clinical practice. Nurse Educ Today, 2016; 39:104–108; doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2016.01.009
34.
WangC, ChenL, MuD, et al. A low-cost simulator for training in endoscopic-assisted transaxillary dual-plane breast augmentation. Ann Plast Surg 2017;79(6); doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001239
35.
BrowneJE, CannonLM, McDermottR, et al.Pilot investigation into the use of an anthropomorphic breast sonography phantom as a training and assessment tool. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2017; 43(11):2733–2740; doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.07.015
36.
BrowneJE, GuC, FazzioRT, et al.Use of novel anthropomorphic breast ultrasound phantoms for radiology resident education. J Am Coll Radiol, 2019; 16(2):211–218; doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.08.028
37.
SutcliffeJ, HardmanRL, DornbluthNC, et al.A novel technique for teaching challenging ultrasound-guided breast procedures to radiology residents. J Ultrasound Med, 2013; 32(10):1845–1854.
38.
NassifJ, SleimanA-K, NassarAH, et al.Hybrid simulation in teaching clinical breast examination to medical students. J Cancer Educ, 2019; 34(1):194–200; doi: 10.1007/s13187-017-1287-3
39.
SchubartJR, ErdahlL, SmithJS, et al.Use of breast simulators compared with standardized patients in teaching the clinical breast examination to medical students. J Surg Educ, 2012; 69(3):416–422; doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2011.10.005
40.
HarrisAD, McGregorJC, PerencevichEN, et al.The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 2006; 13(1):16–23; doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1749
41.
HaneuseS.Distinguishing selection bias and confounding bias in comparative effectiveness research. Med Care, 2016; 54(4):e23–e29; doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000011
42.
BrowneFR, ZuccheroRA, HookerEA, et al.Longitudinal outcomes of a brief interprofessional educational experience with or without an interprofessional education course. J Interprof Care, 2021; 35(1):74–82; doi: 10.1080/13561820.2019.1702513
43.
CostelloM, HuddlestonJ, Atinaja-FallerJ, et al.Simulation as an effective strategy for interprofessional education. Clin Simul Nurs, 2017; 13(12):624–627; doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2017.07.008
44.
DugganA.Variation in maternity care: How data can help clinicians provide the best care. Aust Midwifery News, 2022; 3; doi: 10.3316/informit.086039819305830
45.
CoatesD, ClerkeT.Training interventions to equip health care professionals with shared decision-making skills: A systematic scoping review. J Contin Educ Health Prof, 2020; 40(2); doi: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000289
46.
LabragueLJ, McEnroe-PetitteDM, BowlingAM, et al.High-fidelity simulation and nursing students' anxiety and self-confidence: A systematic review. Nurs Forum, 2019; 54(3):358–368; doi: 10.1111/nuf.12337
47.
MutterMK, MartindaleJR, ShahN, et al.Case-based teaching: does the addition of high-fidelity simulation make a difference in medical students' clinical reasoning skills?. Med Sci Educ, 2020; 30(1):307–313; doi: 10.1007/s40670-019-00904-0
48.
GORDONJA.The Human Patient SimulatorTM: Acceptance and efficacy as a teaching tool for students. Acad Med, 2000; 75(5); doi: 10.1097/00001888-200005000-00043
49.
StellflugSM, LoweNK. The effect of high fidelity simulators on knowledge retention and skill self efficacy in pediatric advanced life support courses in a rural state. J Pediatr Nurs, 2018; 39:21–26; doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2017.12.006
50.
BrydgesR, CarnahanH, RoseD, et al.Coordinating progressive levels of simulation fidelity to maximize educational benefit. Acad Med, 2010; 85(5); doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d7aabd
51.
AndersonOS, PhillipsJ, WeirauchK, et al.Development of team behavior skills and clinical lactation competence among medical students engaging in telesimulations with standardized patients. Breastfeed Med, 2022; 17(6):519–527; doi: 10.1089/bfm.2021.0229
52.
WagnerEA, ChantryCJ, DeweyKG, et al.Breastfeeding concerns at 3 and 7 days postpartum and feeding status at 2 months. Pediatrics, 2013; 132(4); doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-0724
53.
VictoraCG, BahlR, BarrosAJD, et al.Breastfeeding in the 21st century: Epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. Lancet, 2016; 387(10017):475–490; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01024-7
54.
ZhangB-Z, ZhangH-Y, LiuH-H, et al.Breastfeeding and maternal hypertension and diabetes: A population-based cross-sectional study. Breastfeed Med, 2015; 10(3):163–167; doi: 10.1089/bfm.2014.0116
55.
AndersonOS, McCabeCF, ChuisanoSA, et al.Virtual experiential learning: A description of an internship framework that engages students to build public health competencies. Pedagogy Health Promotion, 2020; 7(2); doi: 10.1177/2373379920977537
56.
ForondaC, PratherSL, BaptisteD, et al.Underrepresentation of racial diversity in simulation: An international study. Nurs Educ Perspectives, 2020; 41(3):152–156; doi: 10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000511
57.
Anonymous. The Future of Nursing. National Academies Press: Washington, D.C.; 2011; doi: 10.17226/12956.
ConigliaroRL, PetersonKD, StrattonTD. Lack of diversity in simulation technology: An educational limitation?. Simul Healthc, 2020; 15(2):112–114; doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000405
60.
MilamEC, RangelLK, PomeranzMK. Dermatologic sequelae of breast cancer: From disease, surgery, and radiation. Int J Dermatol, 2021; 60(4):394–406; doi: 10.1111/ijd.15303
61.
HaydenJK, SmileyRA, AlexanderM, et al.The NCSBN National Simulation Study: A longitudinal, randomized, controlled study replacing clinical hours with simulation in prelicensure nursing education. J Nurs Regul, 2014; 5(2):S3–S40; doi: 10.1016/S2155-8256(15)30062-4
62.
GrahamCL, AtzT, PhillipsS, et al.Exploration of a racially diverse sample of nursing students' satisfaction, self-efficacy, and perceptions of simulation using racially diverse manikins: A mixed methods pilot study. Clinl Simul Nurs, 2018; 15:19–26; doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2017.08.007
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
