ArticleJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2021
Comparison of the use of manikins and simulated patients in a multidisciplinary in situ medical simulation program for healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom
Article in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of educational instruction on medical student performance in simulation patient.International journal of medical education · 2022Trial
- Exploring realism in high-fidelity ambulance simulation: ambulance clinicians' perspectives on correspondence with everyday practice.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- A Novel Screen-Based Virtual Reality Tool for Teaching Brain Death Determination: A Pilot Study of the Virtual Reality Brain Death Determination Tool.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- Use of Virtual Patients and Related Training Outcomes in Postgraduate Psychiatry Residency Education: A Scoping Review.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026Review
- Perceptions of Emergency Medical Care students on high-fidelity manikins versus standardised patients: Insights from a pilot mixed-methods study.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2026Article
- AI-driven virtual standardized patients combined with scenario-based simulation in anesthesiology training: a randomized pilot study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Silent teachers: Narratives from the simulation lab.Medical education · 2026Article
- Perceptions of benefits, challenges, and utility of simulation-based education among medical faculty of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- A Scoping Review of Pakistani Healthcare Simulation: Insights for Lower-Middle-Income Countries.Cureus · 2024Review
- Article
- Perception of Realism and Acquisition of Clinical Skills in Simulated Pediatric Dentistry Scenarios.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- 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
purposeSimulation training is increasingly popular in healthcare education, and often relies on specially designed manikins. However, it is also possible to work with actors, or simulated patients (SPs), which may provide a greater sense of realism. This study aimed to compare these 2 approaches, to ascertain which makes healthcare professionals feel most comfortable, which leads to the greatest improvement in confidence, and which is most beneficial to learning.
methodsThis study was embedded in a pre-existing multidisciplinary in situ simulation program. A multidisciplinary group of learners from a range of backgrounds—including nurses, doctors, and other allied health professionals—were asked to complete a questionnaire about their learning preferences. We collected 204 responses from 40 simulation sessions over 4 months, from September to December 2019. Of these 204 responses, 123 described using an SP and 81 described using a manikin.
resultsWe found that 58% of respondents believed they would feel more comfortable working with an actor, while 17% would feel more comfortable using a manikin. Learners who used both modalities reported a significant increase in confidence (P<0.0001 for both). Participants felt that both modalities were beneficial to learning, but SPs provided significantly more benefits to learning than manikins (P<0.0001). The most common reason favoring SP-based simulation was the greater realism.
conclusionIn scenarios that could reasonably be provided using either modality, we suggest that educators should give greater consideration to using SP-based simulation.
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.