Randomized trial compares high-fidelity simulation and standardized patient training on midwifery students' skills and satisfaction, suggesting different strengths.
BACKGROUND: Teaching and managing breastfeeding is a fundamental competency of midwifery care. OBJECTIVE: This study compared high-fidelity simulation (SimMom) and standardized patient (SP) training in improving midwifery students' breastfeeding teaching skills, satisfaction, and self-confidence, and evaluated how effectively these skills were applied in real clinical settings. METHODS: In this prospective randomized study, 80 third- and fourth-year midwifery students in Türkiye were assigned to SimMom (n = 40) or SP (n = 40) after a theoretical breastfeeding course using a computer-generated randomization sequence. Breastfeeding teaching skills were evaluated during simulation and clinical practice using the Breastfeeding Teaching Skills Assessment Form by researchers. Student satisfaction and self-confidence were self-reported after each session. RESULTS: During simulation, the SP group demonstrated higher breastfeeding teaching skills than the SimMom group (86.5 ± 6.8 vs. 51.2 ± 12.4; P < .001). In clinical practice, the SimMom group showed significant improvement compared with their simulation baseline (51.2-71.1; P < .001), whereas the SP group showed a significant decrease (86.5-68.2; P < .001). No significant difference was found between groups in clinical teaching skills (P = .476). Although satisfaction was higher in the SP group after simulation (P = .004), this difference was not sustained after clinical practice (P = .128), whereas self-confidence remained consistently higher in the SP group both after simulation (P = .005) and after clinical application (P = .001). CONCLUSION: SP training enhances communication-related outcomes such as satisfaction and self-confidence, whereas SimMom training seems to better support the application of technical breastfeeding teaching skills in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ÇETİNKAYA et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: