ArticleHealth SA = SA Gesondheid2026
Perceptions of Emergency Medical Care students on high-fidelity manikins versus standardised patients: Insights from a pilot mixed-methods study.
Article in Health SA = SA Gesondheid, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Simulation-based education is central to Emergency Medical Care (EMC) training, particularly in preparing students for high-pressure, pre-hospital environments. High-fidelity manikins (HFMs) and standardised patients (SPs) are widely used simulation modalities; however, comparative evidence from low- to middle-income countries remains limited. Understanding student satisfaction with these modalities is important for ensuring educational quality and making informed resource allocation. Aim: This study explored EMC students' satisfaction with HFMs and SPs to inform pedagogical and resource-related decisions. Setting: The study was conducted in a university-based simulation laboratory at a South African higher education institution. Methods: A pilot mixed-methods design was employed. Fifteen first-year EMC students completed the same clinical simulation scenario using both a SP and a HFM. Satisfaction was measured using a revised Satisfaction Scale for High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation and two open-ended questions. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative responses were analysed thematically. Results: High levels of satisfaction were reported for both simulation modalities. Standardised patients received higher satisfaction scores for realism, theory-practice integration and self-confidence, while HFMs were rated more favourably for practising technical skills and learning from mistakes. Qualitative findings indicated that SPs enhanced realism and engagement but were associated with increased stress. Conclusion: Despite the small cohort, clear preferences and educational implications emerged. The findings support the use of blended simulation approaches and highlight the need for further, larger-scale research. Contribution: This study provides preliminary evidence to inform simulation-based curriculum design and resource allocation in EMC education within resource-constrained contexts.
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.