Instructiveness of Real Patients and Simulated Patients in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Randomized Experiment
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: Few studies have compared the instructiveness of real patient contacts with simulated patient (SP) contacts. Although most of these studies found no difference, students often comment that the instructiveness of both encounters is dissimilar. The aims of this study were to evaluate which contact (real patient or SP) is perceived as most instructive by students and which variables contribute to this. METHOD: The authors performed an experiment involving 163 first-year medical students, randomized to having a real patient contact (n = 61) or SP contact (n = 102). Quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative (focus groups) methods were used to evaluate the perceived instructiveness of the contact. RESULTS: The general instructiveness of both real patient contacts and SP contacts was marked high. Several differences between the evaluations of real patient contacts and SP contacts were found. For example, students considered real patient contacts less helpful in practicing communication skills and considered the real patients' feedback less relevant. The focus group interviews yielded explanations for many of the differences found. Students regarded real patients as more authentic. However, SPs were better informed about the purpose of the consultation and provided the student with more specific feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Students consider authenticity an important advantage of real patients. Their difficult recruitment is an important disadvantage, however, SPs have important advantages compared with real patients--for example, their feedback. The choice of real patient contacts or SP contacts for medical education depends on factors like the phase of the curriculum and the aim of the encounter.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
Cites
GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR ASTHMA MANAGEMENT AND PREVENTION
PAUWELS, R. A. (1996) · Arerugī/Arerugi · doi:10.15036/arerugi.45.792 · Cited by 9,997 · see citing works
Dornan, T., Littlewood, S., Margolis, S. A., Scherpbier, A., Spencer, J., & Ypinazar, V. (2006) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590500410971 · Cited by 501 · see citing works
Self-citationHojat, M., & Xu, G. (2004) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1023/b:ahse.0000038173.00909.f6 · Cited by 427 · see citing works
Early practical experience and the social responsiveness of clinical education: systematic review
Littlewood, S., Ypinazar, V., Margolis, S. A., Scherpbier, A. J. J. A., Spencer, J., & Dornan, T. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7513.387 · Cited by 361 · see citing works
Self-citationPatient‐oriented learning: a review of the role of the patient in the education of medical students
Spencer, J., Blackmore, D. E., Heard, S., McCrorie, P., McHaffie, D., Scherpbier, A. J. J. A., Gupta, T. S., Singh, K., & Southgate, L. J. (2000) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00779.x · Cited by 294 · see citing works
Self-citationBokken, L., Rethans, J.-J., Scherpbier, A. J. J. A., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2008) · Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · doi:10.1097/sih.0b013e318182fc56 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Self-citationTeaching and assessing communication skills in Maastricht: the first twenty years
van Dalen, J., Bartholomeus, P., Kerkhofs, E., Lulofs, R., van Thiel, J., Rethans, J., Scherpbier, A. J. J. A., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2001) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590120042991 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Self-citationSimulated patients and the assessment of medical students' interpersonal skills
Sanson‐Fisher, R., & Poole, A. D. (1980) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1980.tb02269.x · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Dammers, J., Spencer, J. A., & Thomas, M. (2001) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00841.x · Cited by 95 · see citing works
A Comparison of Pediatric Interviewing Skills Using Real and Simulated Mothers
Helfer, R. E., Black, M., & Teitelbaum, H. S. (1975) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.55.3.397 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Simulated versus actual patients in teaching medical interviewing.
Simek-Downing, L., Quirk, M. E., & Letendre, A. J. (1987) · PubMed · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Gilliland, W. R., Pangaro, L. N., Downing, S. M., et al. (2006) · Teaching and Learning in Medicine · doi:10.1207/s15328015tlm1803_1 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Learning in practice: involving patients in medical education
Howe, A. C., & Anderson, J. (2003) · UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7410.326 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Feedback for learners in medical education: What is known? A scoping review.
Bing-You, R., Hayes, V., Varaklis, K., Trowbridge, R., Kemp, H., & McKelvy, D. (2017) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001578 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Role of active patient involvement in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review
Dijk, S. W., Duijzer, E. J., & Wienold, M. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037217 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Standardized Patients in Medical Education: A Review of the Literature
Flanagan, O. L., & Cummings, K. M. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.42027 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Rodríguez-Rivas, M. E., Cangas, A. J., & Fuentes-Olavarría, D. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632252 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Medical students' learning from patient-led teaching: experiential versus biomedical knowledge
Henriksen, A.-H., & Ringsted, C. (2014) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-013-9454-8 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Finch, E., Lethlean, J., Rose, T., Fleming, J., Theodoros, D., Cameron, A., Coleman, A., Copland, D., & McPhail, S. M. (2018) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2017.1401218 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Aper, L., Reniers, J., Derese, A., & Veldhuijzen, W. (2014) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-206 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bokken, L., Rethans, J.-J., Jöbsis, Q., Duvivier, R., Scherpbier, A., & van der Vleuten, C.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Bokken, Lonneke
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 148-154
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2150878128
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 3.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
- Keywords
- standardized patients, communication skills training, patient feedback, authenticity, first-year medical students, undergraduate medical education, patient recruitment
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physical Examination, Physician-Patient Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Patient Simulation, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
