Scholarlink

Background <p>Standardized patients (SPs) are widely utilized in the training of medical students’ history-taking skills. However, due to certain limitations, many institutions still rely on teachers and students to act as SPs. Despite this practice, there is limited research comparing the teaching effectiveness of these two models. Therefore, this study aims to examine the differences between the teacher standardized patient (TSP) and peer role play (pRP) models in the development of students' history-taking abilities, with a further analysis of the variations between scripted and non-scripted pRP approaches.</p> Methods <p>From May to June 2023, 630 undergraduate third-year medical students majoring in clinical medicine participated in the study. Students were randomly divided into either the TSP or pRP group (both scripted pRP (spRP) and non-scripted pRP (non-spRP)). All groups participated in the same half-hour theory lecture before practicing history taking. After the course, we assessed students' classroom performance and documented their performance in medical record writing skills as well as their clinical history-taking scores during consultations with real patients. Additionally, students' satisfaction with the course was evaluated through a questionnaire. Pre- and post-course self-assessment forms enabled understanding of students’ cognition and self-perceived confidence in their interview skills.</p> Results <p>There were statistically significant differences in the scores of the TSP, spRP, and non-spRP groups in group-based consultation assessment (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05), whereas there were no statistically significant differences in the scores of medical record writing (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). The mean scores of students' overall attitudinal evaluation of the course had no statistically significant differences (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). The mean scores of students' attitudes toward clinical skills development had no statistically significant differences (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05); the mean scores of students' attitudes towards teamwork had a statistically significant difference (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). The pre-simulation self-assessment of all three groups was higher than their post-simulation elf-assessment, and the differences were statistically significant (all <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05).</p> Conclusion <p>RP is more suitable for a history-taking practical course for junior students, which can mobilize the classroom atmosphere, increase students' interest and motivation, and develop students' sense of teamwork; spRP’s performance on the interrogation skills test was higher. Students' self-confidence and attention to the course had an impact on their self-assessment evaluation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of teacher-standardized patients and peer role-play in assessing medical students’ history-taking skills

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月2日

查看全文
  • Yingying Wei,
  • Na Deng,
  • Hongmei Zheng,
  • Haijun Guo,
  • Huiling Zhang,
  • Bing Li,
  • Daiqin Wu,
  • Li wei,
  • Xiaoyun Si

摘要

Background

Standardized patients (SPs) are widely utilized in the training of medical students’ history-taking skills. However, due to certain limitations, many institutions still rely on teachers and students to act as SPs. Despite this practice, there is limited research comparing the teaching effectiveness of these two models. Therefore, this study aims to examine the differences between the teacher standardized patient (TSP) and peer role play (pRP) models in the development of students' history-taking abilities, with a further analysis of the variations between scripted and non-scripted pRP approaches.

Methods

From May to June 2023, 630 undergraduate third-year medical students majoring in clinical medicine participated in the study. Students were randomly divided into either the TSP or pRP group (both scripted pRP (spRP) and non-scripted pRP (non-spRP)). All groups participated in the same half-hour theory lecture before practicing history taking. After the course, we assessed students' classroom performance and documented their performance in medical record writing skills as well as their clinical history-taking scores during consultations with real patients. Additionally, students' satisfaction with the course was evaluated through a questionnaire. Pre- and post-course self-assessment forms enabled understanding of students’ cognition and self-perceived confidence in their interview skills.

Results

There were statistically significant differences in the scores of the TSP, spRP, and non-spRP groups in group-based consultation assessment (p < 0.05), whereas there were no statistically significant differences in the scores of medical record writing (p > 0.05). The mean scores of students' overall attitudinal evaluation of the course had no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). The mean scores of students' attitudes toward clinical skills development had no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05); the mean scores of students' attitudes towards teamwork had a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). The pre-simulation self-assessment of all three groups was higher than their post-simulation elf-assessment, and the differences were statistically significant (all p < 0.05).

Conclusion

RP is more suitable for a history-taking practical course for junior students, which can mobilize the classroom atmosphere, increase students' interest and motivation, and develop students' sense of teamwork; spRP’s performance on the interrogation skills test was higher. Students' self-confidence and attention to the course had an impact on their self-assessment evaluation.