MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967097637 · doi:10.3138/ptc-2018-0113

Impact of Simulated Patients on Physiotherapy Students’ Skill Performance in Cardiorespiratory Practice Classes: A Pilot Study

2020· article· en· W2967097637 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Craig Walker, Fiona Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy Canada · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyCardiorespiratory fitnessIntervention (counseling)Session (web analytics)Class (philosophy)Medical educationRandomized controlled trialPsychologyDreyfus model of skill acquisitionMedicineNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To date, no evidence exists that high-fidelity simulation improves skill development among physiotherapy students in the university setting. With pressures to reduce costs and maintain or improve the quality of the learning experience, and with pressures on clinical placement, it is essential to investigate methods that might improve students’ skill performance before they undertake clinical practice. Our study set out to investigate (1) the impact of using simulated patients (SPs) in a practical class on physiotherapy students’ skill acquisition and (2) the students’ reflections on the intervention. Method: We devised a pilot study using a single-centre randomized controlled trial. A total of 28 undergraduate physiotherapy students, matched using previous practical examination grades, undertook a 2-hour practical class in which they practised their core cardiorespiratory skills. Pre-session resources were identical. The control group practised on peers; the intervention group practised on SPs. The students’ skill performance was assessed 2 weeks later using the Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (MiniCEX), including gathering qualitative data from the students’ reflections. Twenty-eight students undertook the practical class and subsequent MiniCEX assessment. Results: A statistically significant difference was found for all aspects of the MiniCEX except medical interview ( p = 0.07) and physical interview ( p = 0.69), and a large effect size was found for all areas except physical interview (0.154) and medical interview (0.378). The students’ reflections focused on three key themes: behaviours and attitudes, teaching the active cycle of breathing technique, and feedback. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that interacting with SPs improves student skill performance, but further research using a larger sample size and an outcome measure validated for this population is required to confirm this.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiotherapy CanadaSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207