Background: This study evaluated the impact of high-fidelity simulation versus simulation with standardized patients on the development of reflective practice among medical students. Methods: A randomized controlled trial design with both pre- and post-simulation assessments was adopted. Thirty-two final-year medical students were randomly assigned to two groups (Group 1: high-fidelity simulation (n = 16); Group 2: simulation with standardized patients (n = 16)). Each group participated in six sessions over the course of two months, including six identical scenarios for both groups. The Groningen Reflection Ability Scale (GRAS) was used to assess the participants’ reflection skills before and after the simulation. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, paired t-tests for within-group changes, and independent t-tests for between-group comparisons. Results: Reflection scores improved significantly from pre- to post-simulation across the combined sample (p < 0.05). Within-group analyses demonstrated statistically significant improvements in self-reflection (31.3 ± 7.11 vs. 36.8 ± 5.34; p < 0.001), empathic reflection (19.1 ± 4.68 vs. 20.6 ± 4.51; p = 0.020), and reflective communication (23.1 ± 5.11 vs. 25.5 ± 4.35; p < 0.001). Additionally, between-group comparison revealed that the high-fidelity simulation group attained a significantly higher total reflection ability score compared with the standardized patient group (91.8 ± 7.70 vs. 74.0 ± 11.55; p <0.001). Conclusions: Simulation practice, whether high-fidelity or with standardized patients, helps to improve students’ reflection. However, high-fidelity simulation was proven to be more effective than simulation with standardized patients. This study reinforces the use of simulation as a tool for developing reflective practice skills in medical training.
Loubbairi et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: