Linear virtual patients versus student role-plays in teaching patient-centeredness: a mixed-method study.

IF 1.9 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Michał Pers, Robert Kupis, Andrzej A Kononowicz, Grzegorz Cebula, Magdalena Szopa
{"title":"Linear virtual patients versus student role-plays in teaching patient-centeredness: a mixed-method study.","authors":"Michał Pers, Robert Kupis, Andrzej A Kononowicz, Grzegorz Cebula, Magdalena Szopa","doi":"10.5116/ijme.6a0d.902f","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study is aimed to assess differences in patient-centered attitudes between students using linear virtual patients focused on the patient's perspective and those participating in role-play, compare satisfaction with the methods, and explore students' perceptions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods study was conducted among third-year medical students attending a communication course. Students were randomly allocated to either the virtual patient or the role-play group. In total, 122 students participated. Patient-centered attitudes were assessed before and after the intervention using the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale. Satisfaction was measured using a 7-point questionnaire. Six students participated in semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using nonparametric tests and equivalence testing, while qualitative were analyzed using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No differences were observed between the groups in patient-centered attitudes either before or after the intervention. Equivalence testing indicated that outcomes for both teaching methods fell within a predefined equivalence margin of 0.5 points on the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale. Students in the role-play group reported higher satisfaction (role-play: median 5.65, IQR = 5.00-6.09; virtual patients: median 5.06, IQR = 4.24-5.62; p = .001). Qualitative interviews revealed that students valued role-play for interpersonal engagement, virtual patients were appreciated for reducing stress and supporting reflective learning.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Methods produced equivalent effects on patient-centered attitudes. Although students expressed a preference for role-play due to its realism, they recognized the reflective and low-stress advantages of virtual patients. Future research should explore hybrid approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":14029,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Education","volume":"17 ","pages":"77-89"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13563274/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.6a0d.902f","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study is aimed to assess differences in patient-centered attitudes between students using linear virtual patients focused on the patient's perspective and those participating in role-play, compare satisfaction with the methods, and explore students' perceptions.

Methods: A mixed-methods study was conducted among third-year medical students attending a communication course. Students were randomly allocated to either the virtual patient or the role-play group. In total, 122 students participated. Patient-centered attitudes were assessed before and after the intervention using the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale. Satisfaction was measured using a 7-point questionnaire. Six students participated in semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using nonparametric tests and equivalence testing, while qualitative were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results: No differences were observed between the groups in patient-centered attitudes either before or after the intervention. Equivalence testing indicated that outcomes for both teaching methods fell within a predefined equivalence margin of 0.5 points on the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale. Students in the role-play group reported higher satisfaction (role-play: median 5.65, IQR = 5.00-6.09; virtual patients: median 5.06, IQR = 4.24-5.62; p = .001). Qualitative interviews revealed that students valued role-play for interpersonal engagement, virtual patients were appreciated for reducing stress and supporting reflective learning.

Conclusions: Methods produced equivalent effects on patient-centered attitudes. Although students expressed a preference for role-play due to its realism, they recognized the reflective and low-stress advantages of virtual patients. Future research should explore hybrid approaches.

线性虚拟患者与学生角色扮演在以患者为中心教学中的对比:一项混合方法研究。
目的:本研究旨在评估以患者为中心的线性虚拟患者与参与角色扮演的学生在以患者为中心的态度上的差异,比较他们对方法的满意度,并探讨学生的感知。方法:采用混合方法对参加传播学课程的医三学生进行研究。学生们被随机分配到虚拟病人组和角色扮演组。总共有122名学生参与。采用患者-执业者取向量表评估干预前后以患者为中心的态度。满意度是用7分问卷来衡量的。六名学生参加了半结构化的面试。定量数据采用非参数检验和等效检验进行分析,定性数据采用专题分析进行分析。结果:干预前后两组患者以患者为中心的态度均无差异。等效性检验表明,两种教学方法的结果都落在患者-医生导向量表0.5点的预定义等效范围内。角色扮演组学生满意度较高(角色扮演:中位数5.65,IQR = 5.00-6.09;虚拟患者:中位数5.06,IQR = 4.24-5.62; p = .001)。定性访谈显示,学生重视人际交往的角色扮演,虚拟病人因减轻压力和支持反思性学习而受到赞赏。结论:方法对以患者为中心的态度产生了相同的效果。虽然学生们由于角色扮演的现实性而表达了对角色扮演的偏好,但他们也认识到虚拟病人的反思和低压力优势。未来的研究应该探索混合方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Medical Education
International Journal of Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
38
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书