Residents’ perceptions of simulation as a clinical learning approach
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: Simulation is increasingly being integrated into medical education; however, there is little research into trainees' perceptions of this learning modality. We elicited trainees' perceptions of simulation-based learning, to inform how simulation is developed and applied to support training. METHODS: We conducted an instrumental qualitative case study entailing 36 semi-structured one-hour interviews with 12 residents enrolled in an introductory simulation-based course. Trainees were interviewed at three time points: pre-course, post-course, and 4-6 weeks later. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a qualitative descriptive analytic approach. RESULTS: Residents' perceptions of simulation included: 1) simulation serves pragmatic purposes; 2) simulation provides a safe space; 3) simulation presents perils and pitfalls; and 4) optimal design for simulation: integration and tension. Key findings included residents' markedly narrow perception of simulation's capacity to support non-technical skills development or its use beyond introductory learning. CONCLUSION: perceptions may delimit the focus of their learning experiences. If they view simulation as merely a replica of real cases for the purpose of practicing basic skills, they may fail to benefit from the full scope of learning opportunities afforded by simulation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.019 | 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