GuidelineGMS journal for medical education2026
Development of a standardized role script template for simulated participant scenarios - results of a multi-step consensus process in the German-speaking countries.
Guideline in GMS journal for medical education, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The need for a scientifically founded role script template for simulated participants (SPs) arises from the great importance that SPs have for teaching and assessments in the health professions. Stakeholders have thus far developed their own scripts, making usage across institutions and professions difficult. The aim of this research project is therefore to develop an evidence-based, interprofessional role script template for simulated participants. Method: To integrate the diverse traditions and needs of the professional groups, a multi-stage developmental and consensus process, based on the Delphi method, was conducted by a working group of 19 members over 10 rounds. This process incorporated, among other inputs, the findings of a systematic literature review, feedback from a 24-member interprofessional expert panel, and 11 reviews by experienced SPs. Results: The template has 13 categories, and its modular structure allows for flexible use in teaching and assessment, vocational training, academic studies, as well as further education and training. The template is designed to be consistently interprofessional and suitable for use in the fields of occupational therapy, midwifery, medicine, speech therapy, nursing science, pharmacy, physiotherapy, psychotherapy, emergency response services, veterinary medicine, and dentistry. Conclusion: The complex consensus process reflected the heterogeneity of SP practice in the health professions. Nevertheless, experiences were compiled in one template so that it is possible to interchange scripts between the professions and across institutions and to (further) develop them collectively. The next steps are to evaluate the template's usability and its ongoing development in the community of practice.
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.