ArticleCureus2025
Bioethics for Medical Students Using a Novel Concept for Patient Workshops.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Standardized-patient (SP) encounters are widely used in medical education to enhance communication and professionalism. Although well established in residency training, their use in preclinical medical curricula - particularly in bioethics education - has been less explored. Materials and methods This single-institution pilot study involved six one-hour workshops conducted over three weeks at the Medical Simulation Department of the "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, with 154 second-year medical students. Each session comprised two standardized-patient scenarios addressing emotionally complex bioethical situations, followed by structured debriefing. A five-point Likert-scale questionnaire, adapted from validated communication-training tools and reviewed by faculty experts for content validity, was used to collect students' and lecturers' perceptions. Data from 122 students and all three lecturers were analyzed using Kendall's correlation, Cubist rule-based regression, and nonparametric ANOVA to identify associations among perception variables. Results Students rated communication, feedback, and session organization most positively. Perceived clinical competence was strongly associated with communication (τ = 0.79), SP feedback (τ = 0.68), and session structure (τ = 0.64). These three variables were also the most informative in the Cubist regression model (R² = 0.77). Nonparametric ANOVA confirmed significant associations between perceived competence and communication (p < .001), SP feedback (p < .001), and session organization (p = .037). Conclusions Students perceived SP workshops as engaging and valuable opportunities to apply ethical reasoning and communication skills in a realistic yet low-risk setting. As this study reflects self-reported perceptions from a single institution, its findings should be interpreted cautiously. Future multicenter and controlled studies combining perception and objective performance metrics are needed to determine the educational impact of SP-based bioethics training.
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.