ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Experiences of Medical Students and Evaluators on Utilizing Simulators in Objective Structured Clinical Exam: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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: Simulation is commonly used in health education, but its role in competency assessment remains underrecognized. This study examined the experiences and perceptions of medical students and evaluators regarding the use of simulators during an objective structured clinical exam (OSCE) to assess clinical competency. Methods: This qualitative study employed a conventional content analysis approach. Forty-three medical students and 2 evaluators from the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran were recruited through purposive sampling in 2024 to 2025. Data collection involved 3 focus group interviews (first: 15 students; second: 14 students; third: 14 students), 2 semistructured individual interviews, and field notes, with data collection continued until saturation was achieved. Data analysis was conducted using a method developed by Graneheim and Lundman. Results: Six main categories were identified: (1) change management: resistance to change, stress from utilizing simulators, and positive adaptation to change; (2) facilitative role of the simulator: simulators overcome real-world limitations and act as facilitators rather than replacements for a clinical setting; (3) role of the human agent: the evaluator as a facilitator/interventionist, blended scoring, and feedback; (4) integration/coordination as the missing link: the simulator as a factor in vertical and horizontal integration; (5) challenges in utilizing a virtual patient simulator (VPS): lack of mastery learning before exams, insufficient time to use the simulator, absence of a holistic approach, low fidelity, and technical issues with VPS; and (6) progress toward enhancement: comparisons with past experiences, progress made, and the infrastructure and prerequisites of virtual OSCE. Conclusion: Although the use of simulators in OSCEs is a suitable method for clinical assessment, there are drawbacks in their implementation and training that require special attention. It is recommended that simulation-based assessment be more widely incorporated into the medical education curriculum.
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.