Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38212828›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2024

How simulated patients contribute to student learning in an authentic way, an interview study.

Annelies Lovink, Marleen Groenier, Anneke van der Niet, Heleen Miedema, Jan-Joost Rethans

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Annelies LovinkDepartment of Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Utwente, Hallenweg 5, Enchede, 75522 NH, the Netherlands. a.g.lovink@utwente.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2327-1466
Marleen GroenierDepartment of Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Utwente, Hallenweg 5, Enchede, 75522 NH, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7298-8431
Anneke van der NietDepartment IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0883-8636
Heleen MiedemaDepartment of Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Utwente, Hallenweg 5, Enchede, 75522 NH, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8330-7902
Jan-Joost RethansSkillslab, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5977-3014
University of Twente · NLMaastricht University · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSimulated patients (SPs) play an instrumental role in teaching communication skills and enhancing learning outcomes. Prior research mostly focused on the SP's contribution to students' learning outcomes by providing feedback afterwards. A detailed understanding of the contribution of the SP during SP-student encounters is currently lacking although the majority of the interaction between SPs and students occurs during the SP-student encounter. Therefore, this study focuses on how SPs see their contribution to meaningful student learning experiences during SP-student encounters.

methodsWe interviewed fifteen simulated patients from one institution. We explored their perspectives on meaningful learning experiences during SP-student encounters through in-depth, semi-structured interviews and analyzed using thematic analysis.

resultsSPs view their contribution to meaningful student learning during SP-student encounters from two perspectives. A collective perspective as a member of the community of SPs and an individual perspective. From the collective perspective, SPs believe that the fact that students deal with multiple varied SP-student encounters over time is of value for meaningful learning. From the individual perspective, we noticed that SPs think, act, and react from three different positions. First, as the patient in the role description, second, as a teaching aid and third, as an individual with personal experiences, beliefs, and values. SPs mentioned that the ratio between these different positions can vary within and between encounters.

conclusionsAccording to SPs, we should value the variation between SPs, thereby creating meaningful variation in authentic interactions in SP-student encounters. SPs should be allowed to act and react from different positions during SP-student encounters, including their role description, as teaching aid, and based on their own experiences. In this way, SP-student encounters are optimized to contribute to meaningful student learning through authenticity.

Indexed as

Meaningful learningMedical communicationPositioning theorySimulated patients (SPs)Student learning

Identifiers

PMID38212828
PMCPMC10782599
OpenAlexW4390744110

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.