ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016
Standardized Patient's Views About their Role in the Teaching-Learning Process of Undergraduate Basic Science Medical Students.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Student Communication Skills in a Simulation Setting: A Trends Analysis.Journal of dental education · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStandardized Patients (SPs) are widely used in medical education. SPs have a number of advantages but also have certain limitations. At the institution, SPs have been used since January 2013 for both teaching-learning and assessment during the basic science years of the undergraduate medical program.
aimThe present study was conducted to investigate the perception of SPs about various aspects of the program and obtain suggestions for further improvement. MATERIALS AND
methodsA Focus Group Discussion (FGD) was conducted with a group of five SPs during the second week of November 2015. Respondents were explained the aims and objectives of the study and invited to participate. Written informed consent was obtained. The FGD was conducted using a discussion guide and was audio recorded. Various aspects of the SP program at the institution were discussed. Motivation/s for joining the program and suggestions for further improvement were obtained. Transcripts were created after listening to the recordings and were read through multiple times. Similar responses were coded. Items with similar codes were grouped together into themes.
resultsThree respondents were female while two were male. The major advantage of SPs was their flexibility and ability to present a standardized response to the student. Students become familiar and comfortable with SPs. However, as a SP is simulating an illness s/he may not always be able to do complete justice to the role. The process used by SPs to prepare themselves to portray various diseases was highlighted. The use of SPs both during teaching-learning and assessment was also discussed. Some SPs are trained to provide feedback to students. Most SPs joined the program based on invitations from their friends who were already SPs. Challenges in recruiting SPs in a small island were discussed. Suggestions for further improvement were obtained.
conclusionThe present study obtained the perception of SPs regarding various aspects of the SP program at the institution. The overall opinion of SPs was positive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.