Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39482696›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Cost management analysis of Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE): guide to the universities of medical sciences.

Kheizaran Miri, Tahere Sarboozi Hoseinabadi, Ali Yaghobi, Sadaf Kholosi, Mehdi Miri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Designing self-assessment tools for learning five instrumental clinical procedures in ENT: A modified Delphi consensus approach.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Kheizaran MiriDepartment of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran. mirikheizaran@yahoo.ie.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8090-2420
Tahere Sarboozi HoseinabadiDepartment of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8460-9109
Ali YaghobiStudent Research Committee, Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4720-8072
Sadaf KholosiStudent Research Committee, Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7497-3079
Mehdi Miri9 Dey Education Hospital, Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5316-0409

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a crucial assessment tool for evaluating learners' ability to apply theoretical knowledge in practical clinical situations. It is widely accepted by both students and educators, and the costs associated with conducting OSCE assessments vary depending on the field of study, how it is implemented, staffing needs, standardized patients, and duration of the examination. This study examines the expenses related to administering OSCEs in medical universities.

methodConducted from June to September 2023; this mixed-method study elucidated the cost intricacies of executing a two-day OSCE with 14 eight-minute stations for 100 nursing students. This process unfolds in two phases: a qualitative segment comprising text reviews and 45-minute in-depth interviews with faculty members and OSCE experts, leading to the development of a validated checklist, followed by a quantitative phase in which the tool was distributed to 25 faculty members and 5 specialists for completion.

resultThe examination costs were delineated into three primary components: time, human resources, equipment, consumables, and necessary supplies. In 2023, the total implementation cost of the OSCE for 100 students across 14 clinical stations was $1028.07, with an estimated per-learner cost of $37.50. Human resources incurred the highest expenditure ($1649.37); while supply costs were relatively lower ($1072.17). Educational infrastructure expenses were excluded because the study focused on the Nursing and Midwifery Faculty's Clinical Skills Center.

conclusionVarious factors influence OSCE costs, including national production capabilities of medical supplies, institutional credibility, governance status, examination frequency, student demographics, assessor composition, station count, course content, and examinee volume. The insights derived from this comprehensive examination are significant as entry benchmarks for healthcare systems and higher-level academic evaluations. Understanding OSCE cost dynamics facilitates resource optimization and assessment strategy refinement, thereby improving medical education efficacy.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansStudents, NursingCost managementMedical science universitiesNursingOSCE

Identifiers

PMID39482696
PMCPMC11526523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.