MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385650378 · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2023.2241621

Training simulated participants for role portrayal and feedback practices in communication skills training: A BEME scoping review: BEME Guide No. 86

2023· article· en· W4385650378 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea J. Doyle, Clare Sullivan, Michelle O’Toole, Anna Tjin, Anastasija Simiceva, Naoise Collins, Paul Murphy, Michael J. Anderson, Claire Mulhall, Claire Condron, Debra Nestel, Robert MacAulay, Nancy McNaughton, Frank Coffey, Walter Eppich

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Teacher · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methodologies in Social Sciences
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Medical educationPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Providing feedback is a key aspect of simulated participants' (SPs) educational work. In teaching contexts, the ability to provide feedback to learners is central to their role. Suboptimal feedback practices may deny learners the valuable feedback they need to learn and improve. This scoping review systematically maps the evidence related to SPs' role as educators and identifies how SPs prepare for their role and feedback practices. METHODS: The authors conducted a scoping review and included a group of international stakeholders with experience and expertise in SP methodology. Five online databases were systematically searched and ERIC, MedEdPortal and MedEdPublish were hand searched to identify relevant studies. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were developed. Data screening and subsequently data charting were performed in pairs. The results of data charting were thematically analysed including categories relating to the Association of SP Educators (ASPE) Standards of Best Practice (SOBP). RESULTS: From 8179 articles identified for the title and abstract screening, 98 studies were included. Studies reported the benefit of SPs' authentic role portrayal and feedback interactions for learners and on the reported learning outcomes. Data was heterogeneous with a notable lack of consistency in the detail regarding the scenario formats for communication skills training interventions, SP characteristics, and approaches to training for feedback and role portrayal. CONCLUSIONS: The published literature has considerable heterogeneity in reporting how SPs are prepared for role portrayal and feedback interactions. Additionally, our work has identified gaps in the implementation of the ASPE SOBP, which promotes effective SP-learner feedback interactions. Further research is required to identify effective applications of SP methodology to prepare SPs for their role as educators.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0170.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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 head0.395
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical TeacherSame topicInnovative Teaching Methodologies in Social SciencesFrench-language works237,207