ArticleBMC medical education2025
Comparison of teacher-standardized patients and peer role-play in assessing medical students' history-taking skills.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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.
- Standardized Patient vs Video Demonstration for Teaching Psychomotor Skills in Spinal Injury Management to Undergraduate Medical Students: Prospective Interventional Comparative Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Progress in educational theory and translational implementation of simulation-based education for healthcare professionals: an integrative analysis from theory to effectiveness.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Integrated model of Student Standardized Patients and peer assessment enhances SOAP note proficiency in obstetrics and gynecology residency.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStandardized patients (SPs) are widely utilized in the training of medical students' history-taking skills. However, due to certain limitations, many institutions still rely on teachers and students to act as SPs. Despite this practice, there is limited research comparing the teaching effectiveness of these two models. Therefore, this study aims to examine the differences between the teacher standardized patient (TSP) and peer role play (pRP) models in the development of students' history-taking abilities, with a further analysis of the variations between scripted and non-scripted pRP approaches.
methodsFrom May to June 2023, 630 undergraduate third-year medical students majoring in clinical medicine participated in the study. Students were randomly divided into either the TSP or pRP group (both scripted pRP (spRP) and non-scripted pRP (non-spRP)). All groups participated in the same half-hour theory lecture before practicing history taking. After the course, we assessed students' classroom performance and documented their performance in medical record writing skills as well as their clinical history-taking scores during consultations with real patients. Additionally, students' satisfaction with the course was evaluated through a questionnaire. Pre- and post-course self-assessment forms enabled understanding of students' cognition and self-perceived confidence in their interview skills.
resultsThere were statistically significant differences in the scores of the TSP, spRP, and non-spRP groups in group-based consultation assessment (p < 0.05), whereas there were no statistically significant differences in the scores of medical record writing (p > 0.05). The mean scores of students' overall attitudinal evaluation of the course had no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). The mean scores of students' attitudes toward clinical skills development had no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05); the mean scores of students' attitudes towards teamwork had a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). The pre-simulation self-assessment of all three groups was higher than their post-simulation elf-assessment, and the differences were statistically significant (all p < 0.05).
conclusionRP is more suitable for a history-taking practical course for junior students, which can mobilize the classroom atmosphere, increase students' interest and motivation, and develop students' sense of teamwork; spRP's performance on the interrogation skills test was higher. Students' self-confidence and attention to the course had an impact on their self-assessment evaluation.
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.