ArticleBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2021
Engaging young people as simulated patients: a qualitative description of health professional educators' perspectives.
Article in BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Systematic Review of Emotional, Cognitive, and Logistical Factors Influencing Simulated Patient Performance in Simulation-Based Education.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Real patients in clinical placements are important for learning and may well be the 'gold standard'. However, simulated patients (SPs) are a viable alternative in the absence of this opportunity. While adult SPs contribute to health professions education, child and adolescent simulated patients (CASPs) are less common. This research aims to explore the perspectives of healthcare educators regarding the engagement of young SPs, specifically the identification of barriers and enablers to involving CASPs. Methods: We used an interpretive paradigm of qualitative description. Thirteen interviewees, all educators involved in SP programmes, participated in semistructured interviews. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Findings: Not all participants saw value in engaging CASPs. A number of barriers and enablers to involving them were acknowledged in six themes: challenges and concerns; logistical barriers; benefits of CASPs; overcoming challenges; an ethical minefield; and child safety. Opinions differed with respect to feasibility and necessity for involving CASPs, particularly in the hospital setting where real patients are accessible. All participants articulated the critical importance of ensuring adequate support and adherence to ethical principles if CASPs were involved. Conclusions: The involvement of CASPs in health professions education is a divisive issue. CASPs' ability to provide a realistic option for supporting learning is recognised yet perhaps not wholly perceived as a feasible alternative to real patients. Their engagement raises critical ethical, practical, logistical and financial challenges.
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.