Claims

Direct comparisons find simulated patients as effective as real patients for CST outcomes

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? In two studies directly comparing standardised with real patients, differences in observed skills and in student-reported skills, knowledge and confidence were non-significant. → Pilnick Alison 2018

Evidence

Pilnick Alison 2018

Pilnick Alison, Trusson Diane, Beeke Suzanne, O'Brien Rebecca, Goldberg Sarah, Harwood Rowan H. (2018). Using conversation analysis to inform role play and simulated interaction in communications skills training for healthcare professionals: identifying avenues for further development through a scoping review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1381-1

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review reports a study comparing a generic communication skills programme with standardised versus real patients in a mixed group of HCPs; differences between standardised and real samples were "non-significant". No effect size is printed; equivalence was not formally tested.

"Improvements in communication were observed in all but one training group, and differences between the observed skills used across standardised and real samples were non-significant, suggesting skills transfer from simulation to actual practice."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.