Impact of immediate vs delayed feedback in a midwifery teaching activity with a simulated patient
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Literature on evidence-based midwifery demonstrates a lack of simulation in antenatal consultation. Aims: This study aims to explore whether immediate individual feedback (IIFB) is more effective than delayed group feedback (DGFB) following a teaching activity for midwifery students, and evaluate students' satisfaction. Methods: A teaching activity with simulated patients was developed to improve midwifery students' competence in conducting a holistic antenatal session. Clinical and communication skills were evaluated using a validated grid adapted from the Calgary-Cambridge Referenced Observation Guide on communication. Students (n = 51) were randomly separated into two groups, IIFB or DGFB. Findings: Non-parametric tests showed that students who received IIFB significantly improved their competence in conducting history-taking in comparison to the students who received DGFB (P = 0.034), including higher satisfaction (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Competence in leading holistic antenatal care sessions is essential for midwives. Students' clinical and communication skills, as well as satisfaction, improve with opportunities to work with simulated patients. Students who received IIFB showed a greater improvement of clinical skills and reported higher satisfaction with the timing of feedback than those who had DGFB.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it