The Application of Student Standardized Patients in Cultivating the Humanities Quality of Medical Students-Taking the Teaching of Foundation of Clinical Skills as an Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore the application effect of Student Standardized Patients (SSP) in Teaching of Foundation of Clinical Skills. Methods: Our school's 2017 clinical major (six-year program) students were selected as the control group, and the 2018 clinical medicine major (six-year program) students were selected as the experimental group. The control group used traditional teaching methods, with students practicing consultation in the ward. The observation group used student standardized patient (SSP) combined with humanistic care teaching methods, with SSP and students conducting consultation training. The exam scores and final theoretical exam scores, as well as medical history collection data from both groups, were compared in the context of the teaching of the Foundations of Clinical Skills. At the same time, to understand the satisfaction of 2018 grade students with SSP teaching, as well as their evaluation of the teaching model, medical history collection, and mastery of humanistic literacy through questionnaires. Results: The medical history collection and final theoretical exam scores of the experimental group were higher than those of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); The survey results show that students generally have high satisfaction with SSP consultation teaching. Most students believe that using SSP practice is helpful in improving consultation skills, and that using SSP consultation teaching is beneficial for cultivating their humanistic qualities. Conclusion: This study found that scientific training of SSP, combined with scenario simulation and its application in Teaching of Foundation of Clinical Skills, can effectively improve students' practical skills and theoretical grades in medical history collection. Additionally, it plays a role in fostering students' medical humanities qualities.
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 | 0.026 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".