The effect of standardized patients for physical therapy students on behaving and communicating as a professional: a systematic review

IF 0.8 Q4 REHABILITATION
M. Donaldson, K. Tyler, A. Carroll
{"title":"The effect of standardized patients for physical therapy students on behaving and communicating as a professional: a systematic review","authors":"M. Donaldson, K. Tyler, A. Carroll","doi":"10.1080/10833196.2022.2141039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Previous systematic review and meta-analysis examining standardized patients (SPs) in Physical Therapy (PT) education yielded 14 articles describing 16 studies; 10 addressed professional behaviors (PB), and six reported providing SP feedback to students. Of those six studies, four were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) emphasizing SP feedback on clinical competencies. Only two studies examined PB or communication in PT students after receiving SP feedback. There appears to be a gap within the current literature to understand better SPs’ ability to impact PT students’ communication and PB as they prepare for clinical education. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and critically appraise the findings of empirical studies (qualitative or quantitative) evaluating the contribution of SPs on the student’s affective learning domain (professional behavior and/or communication) in PT entry-level education. Methods A systematic review was completed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines for Reporting Systematic Reviews on December 1, 2021, using the following electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials, CINAHL, ERIC, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. Article inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed, assess PT students, assess the affective learning domain, intervention using live, standardized patient learning experiences, and be written in the English language. Studies were excluded if they involved peer-role play as the (SP) or if the authors did not describe the SP process. The risk of bias was evaluated through the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool (CASP), given the heterogeneity of study types anticipated for this systematic review, and PEDro if the study design was a RCT. Results There were ten included studies in this review. Two studies were RCT designs that explored Immersive Simulation-Based Learning Experience (SBE) in the clinic’s impact on PB, and all used the Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice (AAP) outcome measure. The other seven studies examined SPs or SBE on PB within the classroom and had significant heterogeneity based on study design and outcomes reported. Discussion Summative results suggest that SP or SBE has some unique attributes, if applied in the clinical environment, may improve students’ PB and core values development, consistent with a PT practice. This systematic review may inform academic leadership and clinical educators in physical therapy education delivery. Integrating experiential and simulated learning experiences into a program may increase efficiency by allowing students to demonstrate clinical competence skills sooner. Limitations Heterogeneity of study design and reported outcomes limited the results and pooling of data.","PeriodicalId":46541,"journal":{"name":"Physical Therapy Reviews","volume":"27 1","pages":"464 - 476"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Therapy Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2022.2141039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Background Previous systematic review and meta-analysis examining standardized patients (SPs) in Physical Therapy (PT) education yielded 14 articles describing 16 studies; 10 addressed professional behaviors (PB), and six reported providing SP feedback to students. Of those six studies, four were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) emphasizing SP feedback on clinical competencies. Only two studies examined PB or communication in PT students after receiving SP feedback. There appears to be a gap within the current literature to understand better SPs’ ability to impact PT students’ communication and PB as they prepare for clinical education. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and critically appraise the findings of empirical studies (qualitative or quantitative) evaluating the contribution of SPs on the student’s affective learning domain (professional behavior and/or communication) in PT entry-level education. Methods A systematic review was completed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines for Reporting Systematic Reviews on December 1, 2021, using the following electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials, CINAHL, ERIC, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. Article inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed, assess PT students, assess the affective learning domain, intervention using live, standardized patient learning experiences, and be written in the English language. Studies were excluded if they involved peer-role play as the (SP) or if the authors did not describe the SP process. The risk of bias was evaluated through the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool (CASP), given the heterogeneity of study types anticipated for this systematic review, and PEDro if the study design was a RCT. Results There were ten included studies in this review. Two studies were RCT designs that explored Immersive Simulation-Based Learning Experience (SBE) in the clinic’s impact on PB, and all used the Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice (AAP) outcome measure. The other seven studies examined SPs or SBE on PB within the classroom and had significant heterogeneity based on study design and outcomes reported. Discussion Summative results suggest that SP or SBE has some unique attributes, if applied in the clinical environment, may improve students’ PB and core values development, consistent with a PT practice. This systematic review may inform academic leadership and clinical educators in physical therapy education delivery. Integrating experiential and simulated learning experiences into a program may increase efficiency by allowing students to demonstrate clinical competence skills sooner. Limitations Heterogeneity of study design and reported outcomes limited the results and pooling of data.
标准化患者对物理治疗专业学生行为和沟通的影响:系统回顾
摘要背景先前对物理治疗(PT)教育中的标准化患者(SP)进行的系统综述和荟萃分析产生了14篇文章,描述了16项研究;10人涉及专业行为(PB),6人报告向学生提供SP反馈。在这六项研究中,有四项是随机对照试验,强调SP对临床能力的反馈。只有两项研究调查了PT学生在收到SP反馈后的PB或沟通。在当前的文献中,似乎存在一个空白,即更好地理解SP在PT学生准备临床教育时影响他们的沟通和PB的能力。本系统综述旨在综合和批判性评价实证研究(定性或定量)的结果,这些研究评估了SP在PT入门教育中对学生情感学习领域(职业行为和/或沟通)的贡献。方法根据2021年12月1日《系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)系统评价报告指南》,使用以下电子数据库PubMed、Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials、CINAHL、ERIC、SCOPUS和Web of Science完成系统评价。文章纳入标准:同行评审,评估PT学生,评估情感学习领域,使用现场标准化患者学习体验进行干预,并用英语写作。如果研究涉及作为(SP)的同伴角色扮演,或者作者没有描述SP过程,则将其排除在外。考虑到本系统综述预期的研究类型的异质性,通过关键评估技能计划工具(CASP)评估偏倚的风险,如果研究设计是随机对照试验,则通过PEDro评估偏倚风险。结果本综述共纳入10项研究。两项研究是随机对照试验设计,探讨了临床上基于沉浸式模拟的学习体验(SBE)对PB的影响,并均使用了物理治疗实践评估(AAP)结果测量。其他七项研究在课堂内检查了SP或SBE对PB的影响,根据研究设计和报告的结果,这些研究具有显著的异质性。讨论总结结果表明,SP或SBE具有一些独特的属性,如果应用于临床环境,可以提高学生的PB和核心价值观的发展,与PT实践相一致。这一系统综述可以为学术领导和临床教育工作者提供物理治疗教育。将体验式和模拟式学习体验融入课程中,可以让学生更快地展示临床能力,从而提高效率。局限性研究设计和报告结果的异质性限制了结果和数据池。
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
Physical Therapy Reviews
Physical Therapy Reviews REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Physical Therapy Reviews is an international journal which aims to publish contemporary reviews, discussion papers and editorials within physical therapy, and in those basic and clinical sciences which are the basis of physical therapy. The journal is aimed at all those involved in research, teaching and practice within the area of physical therapy. Reviews (both descriptive and systematic) are invited in the following areas, which reflect the breadth and diversity of practice within physical therapy: •neurological rehabilitation •movement and exercise •orthopaedics and rheumatology •manual therapy and massage •sports medicine •measurement •chest physiotherapy •electrotherapeutics •obstetrics and gynaecology •complementary therapies •professional issues •musculoskeletal rehabilitation
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信