Skip to main content
Download PDF

Assessing the equivalency of face-to-face and online simulated patient interviews in an educational intervention

Advances in Simulation volume 9, Article number: 13 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

In adapting to COVID-19, many health professional training programs moved abruptly from in-person to online simulated patient interviews for teaching and evaluation without the benefit of evidence regarding the efficacy of this mode of delivery. This paper reports on a multi-methods research project comparing in-person and online simulated patient interviews conducted by allied health professionals as part of an educational intervention offered at a large university teaching hospital.

Methods

Twenty-three participants conducted two 15-min interviews with simulated patients using previously validated scenarios of patients presenting with suicide risk. In order to assess the equivalency of the two modalities, physiological and psychological stress were measured using heart rate variability parameters and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory respectively, and then were compared across cohorts using t-tests. Reflective interviews elicited qualitative impressions of the simulations that were subject to thematic qualitative analysis.

Results

There were no statistical differences in measures of psychological stress or physiological arousal of participant health care professionals who engaged with in-person versus online simulated interviews, suggesting they were equally effective in eliciting reactions commonly found in challenging clinical situations. In reflective interviews, participants commented on the realism of both modalities of simulated patient encounters and that simulated interviews provoked emotional and physiological responses consistent with actual patient encounters.

Conclusions

These findings provide developing evidence that carefully designed online clinical simulations can be a useful tool for the education and assessment of healthcare professionals.

Introduction

Gaba defined simulation as a technique designed to replace “real life experiences with guided experiences, often immersive in nature, that evoke or replicate substantial aspects of the real world in a fully interactive fashion” [1] (p 126). To this end, simulated patients (alternatively referred to as standardized patients by some researchers and educators—see [2,3,4]) present realistic patient scenarios, allowing for the demonstration, assessment, and observation of competence in healthcare trainees [5, 6]. Originally designed for medical education [7,8,9], the simulated patient methodology has subsequently been adapted for education and research purposes for a range of allied health professions [10,11,12,13]. Simulated patient methodology has been used to enhance cultural competence among healthcare providers [14, 15]; examine factors affecting clinical reasoning during medical emergencies [16,17,18,19]; and investigate decision-making patterns in health professionals such as pharmacists [20, 21], nurses [22, 23], physiotherapists [24], and social workers [25, 26]. It has been suggested that simulated patients can accurately replicate clinical practice in terms of symptom clusters that patients present (referred to as physical fidelity), and can achieve psychological fidelity if the simulated patient is able to accurately portray the emotions of an individual faced with those symptoms, thereby allowing the participant to authentically engage as they would in clinical practice [27].

Physiological stress research has demonstrated that stress responses to simulations can be remarkably similar to responses in actual clinical situations. For instance, Stevens and colleagues found congruence in the neurodynamics of teams (using EEG data) during simulated surgeries and surgeries with live patients [28]. Similarly, Dias and Neto reported equivalent stress responses in real life and simulated emergencies encountered by internal medicine residents, as measured by heart rate variability, salivatory interleukin-1β, and scores on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory [29]. Importantly, research has determined that high-fidelity simulations evoke physiological and psychological stress responses even in highly trained emergency medical teams [30]. This suggests that simulations that replicate high-risk clinical encounters give us a unique window into clinical performance and decision-making. Among varying types of simulation, some research suggests that simulated patient encounters may be particularly effective in replicating stressful clinical encounters and result in elevated levels of physiological arousal as measured by salivary alpha-amylase activity [17]. For instance, the salivary alpha-amylase response has been found to remain elevated for a more prolonged period following nursing simulations with simulated patients than with high-fidelity mannequins [31].

In general, research on simulated patients has focused on their efficacy in in-person encounters using a variety of parameters such as acquired medical knowledge of trainees [5]; heart rate variability and electrodermal activity [32, 33]; and assessments of the verisimilitude of the scenarios by participants [34, 35]. The onset of COVID-19, however, precluded the use of in-person simulations in teaching and assessment of health professionals and forced programs to rapidly develop online approaches [34, 36,37,38,39]. Research conducted in the wake of COVID-19, suggests that online simulated clinical interviews are positively assessed by students and faculty, that they realistically reflect the online counselling environment, and do so in a way that feels “safer” and is less anxiety provoking [34, 36,37,38,39,40]. Notably missing, however, are other measures to assess the ability of online simulated interviews to replicate practice experiences. This research aims to address this gap in evidence and compare the level of physiological and psychological stress experienced by allied health professionals when conducting in-person and online simulated patient interviews assessing suicide risk and the appraisals of participating health professionals on the realism of the simulated experiences.

Previously we have reported on the evaluation of a multi-component educational intervention, aimed at improving professional decision-making among allied health professionals facing situations of risk and uncertainty, one component of which was in-person simulated patient interviews for assessing suicide risk. The simulated patient interviews conducted by participants, and subsequent post-simulation reflective interviews with researchers, provided participants with an opportunity to reflect upon their own decision-making processes [41]. We concluded that the findings suggested that the intervention held promise for refinement and replication. As the COVID-19 pandemic ensued shortly thereafter, and in-person replication was not possible, we designed and implemented an online version of the intervention, including online simulated interviews. This paper reports on multi-methods research aimed at assessing the equivalency between in-person and online simulated patient interviews using physiological and psychological measures and qualitative impressions. Specifically, the research sought to address the following research questions:

  1. 1.

    Do allied health professionals experience the same level of psychological and physiological stress when conducting a simulated patient interview online versus in-person?

  2. 2.

    How do allied health professionals describe their subjective experiences when interviewing simulated patients online versus in-person?

Research ethics board approval was obtained from the University of University of Toronto as well as the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. All participants provided written informed consent.

Method

As part of a larger pilot intervention aimed at improving professional decision-making in situations of risk and uncertainty, two simulated patient interviews were conducted by participants. Simulations involved two 15-min interviews using realistic and previously validated client scenarios to assess suicide risk (authors). One client was an adolescent/young adult (Karolina) presenting with a situational crisis; the second was a depressed middle-aged woman (Margaret) who was a victim of intimate partner violence.

Participants were randomly assigned to complete one scenario prior to the educational intervention, and one following the intervention, such that each participant interviewed each simulated patient once. In the in-person iteration, the interviews were conducted face-to-face and in the online iteration, participants interacted remotely with the simulated clients via the Zoom videoconferencing platform. Simulated interviews were video recorded and videos were played back to participants through a guided interview reflection process, during which they examined and explicated their decision-making process, including cognitive, somatic, and affective influences.

Simulated patients were hired from the Standardized Patient Program of the University of Toronto. This program provides trained and experienced simulated patients to all health professions education programs of the University for teaching, research, and clinical examination purposes. The simulated patients in this study were further trained by the researchers and engaged in mock interviews with researchers to facilitate authenticity and accuracy to the standardized scenarios.

Participants

In both the in-person and online cohorts, allied health professionals were recruited from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, a large mental health facility associated with the University, through a flyer sent via the organization’s listserv. The in-person iteration was piloted with the intention of replication but as a result of COVID-19 restrictions, an online version was created. Thus, participation in the in-person versus the online version was not by random assignment. Data for the in-person version was collected in September 2019 for the simulation conducted prior to the onset of the continuing education intervention and in December 2019 for the post-intervention simulation [41]. Data for the online version was collected in September 2022 for the pre-intervention simulation and December 2022 for the post-intervention simulation. All data was collected at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

Prior to both the in-person and online interventions and in conjunction with hospital administrators, all practicing social workers, nurses, and occupational therapists with 3 or more years of clinical experience were extended an invitation to participate in the educational intervention and research study.

Measures of stress

Acute psychological stress during all simulated patient interviews was assessed using the state form of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) [42]. It consists of 20 statements to which respondents indicate their level of agreement on a 4-point scale regarding how they feel at the given moment. The internal consistency of the STAI-S anxiety scale is high, with alpha coefficients above 0.85. The STAI has been used in a number of studies assessing the ability of simulations to reflect actual clinical practice [29].

Continuous heart rate variability (HRV) is another measure that has been used to assess acute stress in clinical situations [43], stress experienced by participants in clinical simulations [32], and the equivalence of stress response between simulated and real-life clinical encounters [29, 44, 45]. In the present study, HRV was recorded with a FirstBeat BodyGuard 2 HRV monitor, a small and comfortable device affixed to the chest and side with 2 electrode patches [46], that provided data on changes in HRV as an assessment of autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity during simulations. During stress, both the parasympathetic (PNS) and sympathetic (SNS) branches of the ANS are affected; the PNS is suppressed while the SNS increases in activity, thereby increasing HR and decreasing HRV [47,48,49]. HRV data was analyzed using Kubios Standard 3.3.1. Specifically, the PNS index (PNSi) which serves as a measure of parasympathetic nervous system activity and is expected to decrease during stress and the SNS index (SNSi) which serves as a measure of sympathetic nervous system activity and is expected to increase during stress, are analyzed to provide an overall assessment of stress according to the balance of ANS activity [48].

Continuous HRV recorded during the pre and post-intervention simulated patient interviews, was averaged during 5-min segments (epochs) at six points throughout the session: at baseline; at the beginning, mid-point, and end of the simulated interview; and at 10 and 20 min post-interview. Mean differences in HRV parameters (PNS index and SNS index) between online and in-person participants were compared using independent samples t-tests.

Subjective stress was similarly recorded using the STAI at 5 points during the pre and post-intervention simulated interviews: at baseline, at the beginning of the simulated interview, at the end of the simulated interview, 10 min post-interview, 20 min post-interview). Mean differences in STAI scores between online and in-person participants were compared using independent samples t-tests. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics v. 28.0.0.1 (14).

Qualitative analysis

As noted above, following each simulation, participants engaged with researchers in a reflective interview. While a primary purpose was to reflect on decision-making, probes also included asking about physical and emotional responses during the simulation and whether the experience reminded them of any other clinical or personal encounters. These reflective interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis.

Paying particular attention to participants’ subjective experiences of the simulated interviews, transcripts were then subjected to a thematic analysis approach [50,51,52] which is “a tool or technique, unbounded by theoretical commitments…that provides accessible and systematic procedures for generating codes and themes from qualitative data” [53] (p 297). It involves six phases: familiarization with the data; coding; searching for themes; reviewing themes; defining and naming themes; and writing up. In this study, the authors (a senior researcher in the area of workplace stress and decision-making, and a post-doctoral fellow working with the senior researcher) familiarized themselves with the transcripts, highlighting comments related to participants’ qualitative assessments of the simulated patients and their impacts. Following independent manual coding, codes were then synthesized into initial themes, which were then reviewed by the other team members, and themes were collaboratively named. In this process, we identified commonalities and differences within cohorts (online versus in-person) and between cohorts. A selection of participant quotes has been included to illustrate themes in the results section [50,51,52].

Trustworthiness in qualitative research has traditionally focused on verisimilitude or the appearance of truth [54], that is, achieving a sense of resonance or congruence with the audience who may have experienced similar situations [55]. This is similar to the construct of credibility proposed by Lincoln and Guba [56]. A primary method for achieving this is through triangulation [57]. In this study, this was achieved through triangulating qualitative results with quantitative findings and with the research literature. Additional methods for ensuring trustworthiness in this study involve prolonged engagement of the researchers in using simulation methods to examine clinical decision-making; discussing initial themes with participants during the educational intervention; and peer debriefing with other researchers in the field.

Results

Thirteen individuals voluntarily engaged in the in-person intervention, 11 women and 2 men. The mean age was 38 with an age range of 25–50. Seven participants identified as White and six as members of other racial groups. Participants had worked an average of 10.3 years (range 1.5–23) in the professions of social work (8), nursing (4), and occupational therapy (1). Ten individuals voluntarily engaged in the online intervention, 9 women and 1 man. The mean age was 44 with an age range of 25–59. Six participants identified as White and four as members of other racial groups. Participants had worked an average of 16.4 years (range 1–36) in the professions of social work (7), nursing (2), and occupational therapy (1).

Stress responses during simulations

Two forms of stress response were measured in this study, physiological stress (as measured by HRV) and psychological stress (as measured by the STAI). Parasympathetic nervous system tone or the PNSi (a compilation of HRV parameters including mean RR, RMSSD, and SD1(%); [48, 58]) was at its lowest point at the beginning of the simulated interviews and then reached its highest point after the simulations had ended, as is commonly found during a stressful clinical encounter. In an opposite fashion, sympathetic nervous system tone or the SNSi (a compilation of HRV parameters including HR, Stress Index, and SD2(%); [48, 58]) was at its highest point at the beginning of the simulated interviews and then reached its lowest point after the simulations had ended, again, as in commonly found during a stressful clinical encounter. That is, while physiological stress remained relatively heightened throughout the session, by the final assessments, participants had returned to lower than baseline levels of physiological stress. Of note, independent samples t-tests revealed no statistical difference in HRV parameters (PNSi and SNSi) at each time point between the two models of delivery, with all mean differences falling within a 95% confidence interval (see Table 1). Additionally, all confidence intervals crossed zero, further supporting no significant difference in HRs between groups and a mean difference of zero as a reasonable population estimate. This suggests that the two delivery methods were equally able to produce physiological arousal (see Figs. 1 and 2; [59]).

Table 1 t-test results
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Between-group comparison of changes in Parasympathetic Nervous System Index (PNSi) scores (heart rate variability parameters) during an educational intervention using simulated patient interviews

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Between-group comparison of changes in Sympathetic Nervous System Index (SNSi) scores (heart rate variability parameters) during an educational intervention using simulated patient interviews

Full size image

In a similar manner to HRV, mean STAI scores rose from baseline to a high point at the onset of the simulated interviews, and then diminished during the recovery period. That is, while subjective stress remained heightened and relatively stable throughout the session, by the final assessments, participants had returned to lower than baseline levels of subjective stress. In reflective discussions, participants affirmed that they similarly experienced the highest levels of psychological arousal as they entered real-life high-risk decision-making situations. While mean scores on the STAI were slightly higher for the online group, there are no statistical differences in STAI scores between the two models of delivery, with all mean differences falling within a 95% confidence interval (see Table 1). The observed difference in means related to the influence of one individual reporting higher levels of stress. Additionally, all confidence intervals crossed 0, further supporting no significant difference in STAI scores between groups and a mean difference of 0 as a reasonable population estimate. This suggests the two delivery methods were equally able to produce psychological arousal or stress (see Fig. 3; [59]).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Between-group comparison of changes in subjective stress (STAI) scores during an educational intervention using simulated patient interviews

Full size image

Qualitative findings

The thematic analysis of post-simulation reflections across cohorts generated a series of themes suggesting participants experienced robust clinical and psychological realism regardless of their cohort. In line with the quantitative findings reported above, individuals who engaged with online simulated patients indicated that the “simulation was very realistic” (OL-109). One participant explains that almost all of her client work is in-person, and yet “I felt like she was right here in front of me, it felt like we were in person.” (OL-101) Identified themes were: comparisons with previous clinical encounters; emotional engagement; and physiological arousal.

Comparisons with previous clinical encounters

First, participants consistently used the word “client” when describing their simulations and made comparisons to real-life client encounters. This suggests a degree of commitment and buy-in to the simulations even after they were completed. For example, a participant in the in-person cohort says “I feel empathy, sadness towards the client. She could be any of the clients that I used to work with.” (IP-008), while a participant in the online cohort recalls “I actually had a very similar client back when I worked within the community health centers and I was working with kids. The [current] client is actually a little older. I worked with a 14-year-old who was the same.” (OL-105).

Emotional engagement

Second, participants suggest similar levels of complexity while trying to emotionally engage and connect with the simulated patients, whether encounters occurred online or in person. For example, a participant in the in-person cohort recalls the encounter “sometimes I did feel like I was clicking with her, and we were getting somewhere, but then at other times, I felt that I was walking on eggshells.” (IP-002). Participants in the online cohort recall “I had a sense of connection, like I had a sense and that made me feel good. It made me feel like I was connecting with this client, that I was building rapport with this client…and I felt a little afraid of what would happen if I let her go home.” (OL-102) and “I noticed she connected with me. When she made eye contact the first time, I noticed that, and I thought, okay, I’m on the right track [but] I was aware that I wasn’t going to get the whole assessment completed from probably the beginning…” (OL-104).

Physiological arousal

Third, participants in both cohorts recognized and articulated similar physiological sensations and responses to the encounters such as racing heart rate and stomach flips as a result of the interactions. For instance, a participant in the in-person cohort describes “I felt certainly a surge of my heart rate, of my brain going a bit blank for a minute, so signs of feeling a bit anxious.” (IP-004). Similarly, in the online cohort, another describes “I wouldn’t say I’m sweating but I can definitely say my heart’s racing.” (OL-105) while another recalls “When she mentioned her mom…it was just a little moment. Like I could feel my stomach.” (OL-106).

Discussion

Simulated patient encounters through working with simulated patient interviews have become essential tools in clinical education [5,6,7,8] and clinical research [16,17,18,19]. From a teaching perspective, they are used to teach clinical skills, cultural competence, interprofessional collaboration, and assess clinical competencies. From a research perspective, simulated patient interviews can help elucidate aspects of clinical practice and professional decision-making that are difficult to ascertain due to logistical and ethical constraints of real-life practice [19]. Critical to the effective use in both teaching and research, however, is the degree to which simulations truly reflect actual practice [60, 61]. Most research to date has focussed on the efficacy of simulated patient interviews in face-to-face encounters. As COVID-19 required the rapid transition of simulated interviews to online formats [34, 36,37,38,39], a need arose to determine their ability to replicate practice in the virtual realm.

We have previously demonstrated the effectiveness of simulated patient interviews in creating a stressful decision-making situation that might closely reflect a real-life practice encounter [62]. This study sought to determine whether an online synchronous interview with a simulated patient was as effective in replicating a clinical encounter as an in-person simulation. In doing so, we considered multidimensional aspects including assessments of the verisimilitude and clinical realism of the scenarios by participants [34, 35, 63], physiological responses during simulations [30, 32]; and the ability to elicit emotional responses and develop a sense of connection with the simulated patient [64].

To this end, physiological stress as measured by HRV parameters, and psychological stress as measured by the STAI, demonstrated that both in-person and online interventions were effective in eliciting symptoms of stress commonly found in stressful work situations. This is consistent with previous laboratory and simulation research [32, 65, 66]. In addition, the comments of participants supported the realism of an online simulation, a finding that replicates that of others in a variety of clinical fields [40, 67, 68]. Furthermore, comparisons across and within cohorts suggest a number of thematic similarities in both the clinical and psychological verisimilitude experienced by participants. Both cohorts discussed interactions with simulated patients using language that suggests engagement and presence [69] through cognitive and emotional connections and scenario realism that was well aligned with their real-life clinical experiences.

While technology-assisted models of education and clinical practice were on the rise prior to COVID-19, their use accelerated dramatically during the pandemic and has remained higher as the crisis wanes. Not only do online options increase the accessibility of education and clinical services for those who are challenged by mobility, transportation, time, and location, but there is emerging evidence that online simulated patient interviews realistically reflect the online counselling environment, doing so in a way that feels “safer” [34, 36,37,38,39,40], perhaps thereby enhancing learning. In a world where virtual modes of clinical teaching, research, and care provision are key innovations and are no doubt here to stay, ensuring the efficacy of online simulations is critical.

Limitations

This study demonstrates the challenges and limitations of a real-world intervention. First, the study began as a small in-person pilot with the intention that subsequent iterations would result in larger numbers of participants to test the model. A global pandemic thwarted these intentions and resulted in a reworking of the model as an online intervention. Nevertheless, the aftermath of COVID-19 in the hospital sector resulted in continuing workforce challenges and we were only able to recruit another small cohort for the second iteration. Thus, the result is a small pilot study with only 13 participants in the in-person and 10 participants in the online, conducted in one organization. While we found no significant differences between groups, the small sample size may have resulted in a failure to detect differences. Nevertheless, that mean differences fell within 95% confidence intervals that crossed zero is heartening. Other limitations include: random assignment into the two modes of delivery was not possible given the exigencies that existed; the overrepresentation of women in the study groups; the absence of measures to reduce confounds that may have influenced stress levels measured by heart rate variability and the STAI; and that stress responses were limited to two measures. The generalizability of findings is therefore limited.

Conclusions

Simulated patient interviews have become a critical component of research and education in the health sciences. As universities across the globe were faced with the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, this tool for teaching, research, and evaluation of competency was quickly transferred from in-person approaches, which are well supported by research, to online despite the absence of research to support this mode of delivery. This represents a significant gap in the literature. In an effort to assess the equivalency of online and in-person simulated patient interviews, this paper compares online simulated patient interviews with earlier piloted in-person versions. Results are highly promising and demonstrate that a carefully constructed online simulated interview can result in psychological and physiological arousal that is equivalent to an in-person iteration. This is very encouraging, as online delivery creates the potential for the use of simulated patient interviews in a broader range of contexts, supporting online education and research more generally, and making simulation more accessible to community-bound learners and those with mobility and transportation challenges. Further research in this area with larger sample sizes will assist with determining the generalizability of our findings in other contexts.

Availability of data and materials

The quantitative datasets collected and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

OSCE:

Objective Structured Clinical Examination

EEG:

Electroencephalogram

STAI:

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

HRV:

Heart rate variability

ANS:

Autonomic nervous system

PNS:

Parasympathetic nervous system

SNS:

Sympathetic nervous system

PNSi:

Parasympathetic Nervous System Index (compilation of HRV parameters including Mean RR, RMSSD, and SD1(%))

SNSi:

Sympathetic Nervous System Index (compilation of HRV parameters including HR, Stress Index, and SD2(%))

Mean RR:

Mean time interval between successive R-waves of the heartbeat

RMSSD:

Root mean square of successive differences between RR intervals

SD1(%):

Poincaré plot standard deviation perpendicular to the line of identity

HR:

Heart rate

SD2(%):

Poincaré plot standard deviation along the line of identity

OL:

Online

IP:

In-person

References

  1. Gaba DM. The future vision of simulation in healthcare. Simul Healthc. 2007;2(2):126–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nestel D, Bearman M. Introduction to simulated patient methodology. Simulated patient methodology: Theory, evidence and practice. 2014:1–4.

  3. Beigzadeh A, Bahmanbijri B, Sharifpoor E, Rahimi M. Standardized patients versus simulated patients in medical education: are they the same or different. J Emerg Pract Trauma. 2016;2(1):25–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bozkurt SA, Samia R, Gazarian PK. Using standardized patient simulation in undergraduate nursing education: a scoping review. Clin Simul Nurs. 2023;74:3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alsaad AA, Davuluri S, Bhide VY, Lannen AM, Maniaci MJ. Assessing the performance and satisfaction of medical residents utilizing standardized patient versus mannequin-simulated training. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:481–6.

  6. Adamo G. Simulated and standardized patients in OSCEs: achievements and challenges 1992–2003. Med Teach. 2003;25(3):262–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Harden RM, Gleeson F. Assessment of clinical competence using an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Med Educ. 1979;13(1):39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. van der Vleuten CP, Swanson DB. Assessment of clinical skills with standardized patients: state of the art. Teach Learn Med. 1990;2(2):58–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrows HS. Simulated patients in medical teaching. Can Med Assoc J. 1968;98(14):674.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Austin Z, O’Byrne C, Pugsley J, Munoz LQ. Development and validation processes for an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) for entry-to-practice certification in pharmacy: the Canadian experience. Am J Pharm Educ. 2003;67(3):76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Parkin T, Collinson A. Observations on the relationship between the dietetic objective structured clinical examination and placement outcome. Nutr Diet. 2019;76(5):628–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bogossian F, Cooper S, Cant R, Beauchamp A, Porter J, Kain V, et al. Undergraduate nursing students’ performance in recognising and responding to sudden patient deterioration in high psychological fidelity simulated environments: an Australian multi-centre study. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(5):691–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Roberts F, Cooper K. Effectiveness of high fidelity simulation versus low fidelity simulation on practical/clinical skill development in pre-registration physiotherapy students: a systematic review. JBI Evid Synth. 2019;17(6):1229–55.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ozkara San E, Maneval R, Gross RE, Myers P. Transgender standardized patient simulation: management of an oncological emergency. J Transcult Nurs. 2019;30(6):627–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Walkowska A, Przymuszała P, Marciniak-Stępak P, Nowosadko M, Baum E. Enhancing cross-cultural competence of medical and healthcare students with the use of simulated patients—a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(3):2505.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Al-Ghareeb AZ, Cooper SJ, McKenna LG. Anxiety and clinical performance in simulated setting in undergraduate health professionals education: An integrative review. Clin Simul Nurs. 2017;13(10):478–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Valentin B, Grottke O, Skorning M, Bergrath S, Fischermann H, Rörtgen D, et al. Cortisol and alpha-amylase as stress response indicators during pre-hospital emergency medicine training with repetitive high-fidelity simulation and scenarios with standardized patients. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015;23:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. LeBlanc V, Regehr C, Birze A, King K, Scott A, McDonald R, et al. The association between pre-existing trauma symptoms and acute stress responses in paramedics. Traumatology. 2011;17(4):10–16.

  19. Regehr C, Birze A. Use of Simulation Methods in Social Work Research on Clinical Decision-Making. Clin Soc Work J. 2021;49(2):244–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Björnsdottir I, Granas AG, Bradley A, Norris P. A systematic review of the use of simulated patient methodology in pharmacy practice research from 2006 to 2016. Int J Pharm Pract. 2020;28(1):13–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Weiss MC, Booth A, Jones B, Ramjeet S, Wong E. Use of simulated patients to assess the clinical and communication skills of community pharmacists. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32:353–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gillan PC, Delaney LJ, Tutticci N, Johnston S. Factors influencing nursing students’ ability to recognise and respond to simulated patient deterioration: a scoping review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2022;62:103350.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Karadag M, Calıskan N, Iseri O. Effects of case studies and simulated patients on students’ nursing care plan. Int J Nurs Knowl. 2016;27(2):87–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Javaherian M, Dabbaghipour N, Mafinejad MK, Ghotbi N, Khakneshin AA, Moghadam BA. The role of simulated patient in physiotherapy education: a review article. J Modern Rehab. 2020;14(2):69–80.

  25. Bogo M, Regehr C, Logie C, Katz E, Mylopoulos M, Regehr G. Adapting objective structured clinical examinations to assess social work students’ performance and reflections. J Soc Work Educ. 2011;47(1):5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Regehr C, Bogo M, LeBlanc VR, Baird S, Paterson J, Birze A. Suicide risk assessment: Clinicians’ confidence in their professional judgment. J Loss Trauma. 2016;21(1):30–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Naismith LM, Kowalski C, Soklaridis S, Kelly A, Walsh CM. Participant perspectives on the contributions of physical, psychological, and sociological fidelity to learning in interprofessional mental health simulation. Simul Healthc. 2020;15(3):141–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stevens R, Galloway T, Willemsen-Dunlap A. Advancing our understandings of healthcare team dynamics from the simulation room to the operating room: a neurodynamic perspective. Front Psychol. 2019;10.

  29. Dias RD, Neto AS. Stress levels during emergency care: a comparison between reality and simulated scenarios. J Crit Care. 2016;33:8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ghazali DA, Darmian-Rafei I, Nadolny J, Sosner P, Ragot S, Oriot D. Evaluation of stress response using psychological, biological, and electrophysiological markers during immersive simulation of life threatening events in multidisciplinary teams. Aust Crit Care. 2018;31(4):226–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ignacio J, Dolmans D, Scherpbier A, Rethans J-J, Chan S, Liaw SY. Comparison of standardized patients with high-fidelity simulators for managing stress and improving performance in clinical deterioration: a mixed methods study. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35(12):1161–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bhoja R, Guttman OT, Fox AA, Melikman E, Kosemund M, Gingrich KJ. Psychophysiological stress indicators of heart rate variability and electrodermal activity with application in healthcare simulation research. Simul Healthc. 2020;15(1):39–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. LeBlanc V, Regehr C, Jelley B, Barath I. The relationship between coping styles, performance and responses to stressful scenarios in police recruits. Int J Stress Manag. 2008;15(1):76–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hannan TA, Umar SY, Rob Z, Choudhury RR. Designing and running an online Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) on Zoom: a peer-led example. Med Teach. 2021;43(6):651–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Boulet J, Murray DJ. Designing, choosing, and using assessment tools in healthcare simulation research. In healthcare simulation research: A practical Guide (eds Nestel,D., Hui,J., Kunkler,K., Scerbo,M., Calhoun,A.) Springer. 2019:183-90.

  36. Hytönen H, Näpänkangas R, Karaharju-Suvanto T, Eväsoja T, Kallio A, Kokkari A, et al. Modification of national OSCE due to COVID-19–implementation and students’ feedback. Eur J Dent Educ. 2021;25(4):679–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ryan A, Carson A, Reid K, Smallwood D, Judd T. Fully online OSCEs: A large cohort case study. MedEdPublish. 2020;9(214):214.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Mak V, Krishnan S, Chuang S, editors. Students’ and examiners’ experiences of their first virtual pharmacy objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in Australia during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Healthcare; 2022: MDPI.

  39. Bay U, Maghidman M, Waugh J, Shlonsky A. Guidelines for using simulation for online teaching and learning of clinical social work practice in the time of COVID. Clin Soc Work J. 2021;49(2):128–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Occhiuto K, Sewell K, Asakura K. Pivoting to online live-streamed simulations: students’ experiences in clinical social work education. J Soc Work Educ. 2022;59(4):940–52.

  41. Regehr C, Paterson J, Sewell K, Birze A, Bogo M, Fallon B, et al. Improving professional decision-making in situations of risk and uncertainty: a pilot intervention. Br J Soc Work. 2021;52(3):1341–61.

  42. Spielberger CD. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory STAI. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Janicki AJ, Frisch SO, Patterson PD, Brown A, Frisch A. Emergency medicine residents experience acute stress while working in the emergency department. West J Emerg Med. 2021;22(1):94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Chang TP, Beshay Y, Hollinger T, Sherman JM. Comparisons of stress physiology of providers in real-life resuscitations and virtual reality–simulated resuscitations. Simul Healthc. 2019;14(2):104–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Peabody J, Ziesmann MT, Gillman LM. Comparing the stress response using heart rate variability during real and simulated crises: a pilot study. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2023:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10246-7.

  46. Parak J, Korhonen I. Accuracy of Firstbeat Bodyguard 2 beat-to-beat heart rate monitor. 2013.

  47. Awad G, Pohl R, Darius S, Thielmann B, Varghese S, Wacker M, et al. Activation of the stress response among the cardiac surgical residents: comparison of teaching procedures and other (daily) medical activities. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022;17(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tarvainen M, Lipponen J, Niskanen J, Ranta-aho P. Kubios HRV Software User’s Guide. 2021. 2022.

  49. Tarvainen MP, Niskanen J-P, Lipponen JA, Ranta-Aho PO, Karjalainen PA. Kubios HRV–heart rate variability analysis software. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2014;113(1):210–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Braun V, Clarke V. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Couns Psychother Res. 2021;21(1):37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE. Applied thematic analysis: sage publications; 2011.

  53. Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. J Posit Psychol. 2017;12(3):297–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Connelly FM, Clandinin DJ. Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educ Res. 1990;19(5):2–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ollerenshaw JA, Creswell JW. Narrative research: a comparison of two restorying data analysis approaches. Qual Inq. 2002;8(3):329–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1985.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  57. Lemon LL, Hayes J. Enhancing trustworthiness of qualitative findings: Using Leximancer for qualitative data analysis triangulation. Qual Rep. 2020;25(3):604–14.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Nunan D, Sandercock GR, Brodie DA. A quantitative systematic review of normal values for short-term heart rate variability in healthy adults. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2010;33(11):1407–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Heckman MG, Davis JM, Crowson CS. Post hoc power calculations: an inappropriate method for interpreting the findings of a research study. J Rheumatol. 2022;49(8):867–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kozlowski SW, DeShon RP. A psychological fidelity approach to simulation-based training: Theory, research and principles. In E. Salas, L Elliot, S Schflett & M Coovert (eds) Scaled worlds: Development, validation, and applications. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing. 2004. p. 75–99.

  61. Maran NJ, Glavin RJ. Low-to high-fidelity simulation–a continuum of medical education? Med Educ. 2003;37:22–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Regehr C, LeBlanc VR, Bogo M, Paterson J, Birze A. Suicide risk assessments: Examining influences on clinicians’ professional judgment. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2015;85(4):295–301.

  63. Tun JK, Alinier G, Tang J, Kneebone RL. Redefining simulation fidelity for healthcare education. Simul Gaming. 2015;46(2):159–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Beaubien JM, Baker DP. The use of simulation for training teamwork skills in health care: how low can you go? BMJ Qual Saf. 2004;13(suppl 1):i51–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Dolan RJ. Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science. 2002;298(5596):1191–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Dunn BD, Galton HC, Morgan R, Evans D, Oliver C, Meyer M, et al. Listening to your heart: How interoception shapes emotion experience and intuitive decision making. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(12):1835–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Austin A, Rudolf F, Fernandez J, Ishimine P, Murray M, Suresh P, et al. COVID-19 educational innovation: hybrid in-person and virtual simulation for emergency medicine trainees. AEM Education and Training. 2021;5(2):e10593.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Díaz-Guio DA, Ríos-Barrientos E, Santillán-Roldan PA, Mora-Martinez S, Díaz-Gómez AS, Martínez-Elizondo JA, et al. Online-synchronized clinical simulation: an efficient teaching-learning option for the COVID-19 pandemic time and: beyond. Adv Simul. 2021;6:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Cross JI, Boag-Hodgson CC, Mavin TJ. Measuring presence and situational awareness in a virtual reality flight simulator. Aviat Psychol Appl Hum Factors. 2023;13(2):83-94.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was generously supported with a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Cheryl Regehr

  2. Institute for Better Health, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, ON, Canada

    Arija Birze

Authors
  1. Cheryl Regehr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arija Birze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CR was the principal investigator for the study, oversaw all data collection, analyzed data, and was the lead author of the manuscript. AB trained the simulated patients and the research assistant, analyzed data, and participated in writing the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheryl Regehr.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research was approved by the Human Subjects Ethics Committee of the University of (blinded for submission).

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Regehr, C., Birze, A. Assessing the equivalency of face-to-face and online simulated patient interviews in an educational intervention. Adv Simul 9, 13 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-024-00286-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-024-00286-3

Keywords

Advances in Simulation

ISSN: 2059-0628

Contact us