ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2019
"Please let me know when I do not realize it myself": a qualitative analysis of senior simulated patients' experiences.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Capturing and cultivating the simulated patient/participant (SP) experience: a qualitative study exploring how the perspectives of SPs can inform the co-production of an orientation resource guide.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review of Emotional, Cognitive, and Logistical Factors Influencing Simulated Patient Performance in Simulation-Based Education.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Review
- Collaborative framework for working with older simulated participants (SP).BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning · 2021Article
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
backgroundSimulated patients (SPs), defined as being over 65 years old, are valuable partners in the training of health professionals related to the care of our aging population. Many senior SPs have been long-time members of SP programs. As SPs age, shifts in their abilities may be observed that, in turn, can affect the overall quality and effectiveness of their participation. It can be challenging and distressing for both the SP educator and the SP to acknowledge these changes and to respond in a compassionate, respectful, and ethical manner that ensures the safe and effective delivery of a simulation for all stakeholders. SP educators are looking for guidance. The aim of this study was to ask SPs from two countries (Switzerland and Canada) to identify the benefits and challenges of working as SPs as they age and to offer strategies to SP educators to accommodate and facilitate their participation.
methodA qualitative thematic analysis research design was implemented to address the study aims. A semi-structured approach with a topic guide was used to individually interview 16 SPs (9 in Switzerland; 7 in Canada). Researchers iteratively compared their results until consensus was reached in terms of identifying the themes and subthemes.
resultsThree main themes, with corresponding subthemes, were identified: giving and receiving value as senior SPs, recognizing challenges when working as a senior SP, and fostering meaningful involvement for senior SPs. Meaningful involvement focused on creating a sense of security, adapting to changing abilities, acknowledging contributions, and providing opportunities to stay connected to the program.
conclusionThis study illustrates the importance of SP educators working with SPs to co-create a safe and effective work environment. Studies like this can serve as a model to provide practical strategies. Through this study, we have learned from senior SPs how we can best support them in their important work.
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.