ArticleBMC medical education2026
Evaluating medical students' engagement and confidence across three simulation-based education methods: standardized patient, high fidelity simulator, and virtual reality.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of the Jeffries Simulation Framework on the Core Competence of New Graduate Paediatric Surgery Nurses: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Nursing open · 2026Article
- Students' Experiences of Presence and Learning Across Simulated and Virtual Patient Formats: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
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
backgroundSimulation-based education is a crucial element of medical training, providing safe and realistic environments to develop clinical skills and confidence. This study evaluates the effects of three key simulation methods—Standardized Patients (SP), High-Fidelity Simulators (HFS), and Virtual Reality (VR)—on medical students’ engagement and clinical performance confidence.
methodsThe study involved 43 fifth-year medical students from the Ajou University School of Medicine during a respiratory clinical rotation. The students participated in SP-, HFS-, and VR-based simulation education. After each simulation module, their engagement (interest, flow, relevance) and clinical confidence (history taking, physical examination, interacting and communicating with patients, clinical reasoning) were assessed using self-report surveys. A Multivariate Analysis of Variance was conducted to analyze differences in engagement and confidence across the simulation modules.
resultsThe simulation methods had little significant effect on students’ learning engagement or its sub-factors. However, there were significant differences in clinical performance confidence depending on the simulation module. Confidence in history taking, physical examination, and interacting and communicating with patients were significantly higher when using SP compared to HFS and VR.
conclusionThis study provides practical guidance for designing and developing clinical training curricula by directly comparing the effects of various simulation-based education methods. The results suggest that SP-based simulation education is particularly effective in enhancing medical students’ confidence in clinical settings. While VR and HFS offer advantages in immersion and realism, the experience of interacting with actual patients remain crucial for boosting clinical performance confidence. These findings offer crucial insights for optimizing medical education and improving clinical competencies of medical students.
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.