Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30522478›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2018

The virtual patient as a learning tool: a mixed quantitative qualitative study.

Andrés Isaza-Restrepo, María Teresa Gómez, Gary Cifuentes, Arturo Argüello

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrés Isaza-RestrepoSchool of Medicine and Health Sciences, Medical and Health Sciences Education Research Group, Universidad del Rosario, Carrera 24 No 63C - 69, Bogotá, DC, Colombia, 111221. andres.isaza@urosario.edu.co.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1569-969X
María Teresa GómezSchool of Education- Los Andes University, Cra 1 Nº 18A - 12, 111711, Bogotá, Colombia.
Gary CifuentesSchool of Education- Los Andes University, Cra 1 Nº 18A - 12, 111711, Bogotá, Colombia.
Arturo ArgüelloInvento: Creative Solutions for Health, Wellness & Education Corp, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Universidad de Los Andes · COUniversidad del Rosario · CO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of simulation in medical education has been widely accepted. There are different types of medical simulators that vary in both accuracy to emulate the real world (fidelity) and cost of development or acquisition. There is significant evidence that supports the use of high-fidelity simulators (i.e. mannequins or dummies) to prepare students for clinical environments, less attention has been given to low-fidelity simulators. This article aims to present evidence regarding the effectiveness of a low-fidelity simulator: Virtual Patient (VP), which develops several interactive computer-based clinical scenarios, seeking to promote an alternative learning environment and the development of necessary medical skills such as clinical reasoning in students of medicine.

methodsA quasi-experimental study was designed to investigate the results on the development of history taking and clinical reasoning skills in a group of undergraduate medical students, in a course devised under the concepts of constructivism in education, which used the Virtual Patient as the fundamental teaching tool. Results were measured through a mixed, quantitative and qualitative study, triangulating the results of the students' skills evaluation when facing a clinical case represented by an actor patient before and after the course. Additionally, the description of the students' and tool's performance was measured by way of a qualitative study.

resultsThe comparison of the students' skills on the evaluation matrix before-and-after the course evidenced a statistically significant advance (p < 0.01) in all aspects (interview, physical exam, clinical judgment, relevance of medical exams, and presentation of case). Students described the VP as an easy-to-use and motivating tool for learning without stress, especially at the beginning of their career. VP allowed them to create logical and structured processes, to be wrong without consequences, and to review and reassess information available. From the professor perspective, it allowed a better follow-up of the students' learning process and favored reflections on the teaching-learning process.

conclusionsVP proved to be a valuable and useful tool for the development of clinical reasoning and history taking skills in medical students, as part of a constructivist learning course.

Indexed as

LearningPatient SimulationStudents, MedicalClinical CompetenceComputer-Assisted InstructionEducational MeasurementEducation, MedicalEvaluation Studies as TopicHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansManikinsPhysical ExaminationProblem-Based LearningQualitative ResearchUser-Computer InterfaceClinical reasoningLearningMedical educationProblem-based learningSimulationTeachingVirtual patients

Identifiers

PMID30522478
PMCPMC6282259
OpenAlexW2902116953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.