The use of standardised patients in interprofessional education curriculum delivery: A causal-comparative study of student feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Interprofessional education (IPE) has emerged as an essential component of training for students in the health and social care professions. Standardised patients (SPs) have also been developed as an important simulation-based learning modality in health and social care curricula due to the authenticity and realism of the patient or client encounter that may be replicated. Reports evaluating the use of SPs across an IPE curriculum in the health and social care professions are limited. Methods: This evaluation study used a causal-comparative research design to examine the effect of SPs as an instructional method in an IPE curriculum. Evaluative outcomes of the educational experiences of students attending 37 IPE learning modules offered between Autumn 2006 and Winter 2012 were analysed. Results: A total of 6,561 students from seven health and social care professions rated the usefulness of the instructional methods used in each module through post- module surveys. Students consistently rated SPs as significantly more useful than other instructional methods, and overall mean satisfaction scores were significantly higher for IPE modules that incorporated SPs. Conclusions: This study’s findings demonstrate the positive effect that SPs can have on the learning experiences of health and social care students. By Using SPs in IPE curricula, the authenticity of classroom-based interprofessional learning experiences can be enhanced and lead to more positive IPE learning outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".