Impact of the standardised patient teaching method on medical students’ clinical reasoning competence: a systematic review protocol
TL;DR
A systematic review is proposed to summarise the impact of the standardised patient teaching method on the clinical reasoning competence of medical students and the primary outcome is clinical reasoning competence, and secondary outcomes are communication skills and student satisfaction.
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Clinical reasoning is an essential competency for all physicians, and fostering this skill in medical students is a primary objective of medical education. Currently, clinical reasoning is predominantly cultivated through experiences in clinical settings; however, this approach presents certain limitations. The emergence of innovative medical simulation teaching methods has led to the increasing utilisation of standardised patient (SP) simulations in medical education. However, the specific contribution of the SP teaching method to the development of clinical reasoning skills in medical students remains unclear. Therefore, we propose a systematic review to summarise the impact of the SP teaching method on the clinical reasoning competence of medical students. Methods and analysis This systematic review protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines for reporting results. A comprehensive literature search will be conducted across five major online databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Education Research Complete and the Cochrane Library. The screening process comprises an initial review of titles and abstracts to identify relevant studies efficiently, followed by a full-text assessment of the selected articles. Two reviewers will independently conduct study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Data extraction will be performed using a standardised form. The primary outcome is clinical reasoning competence, and secondary outcomes are communication skills and student satisfaction. The risk of bias in included studies will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2. Depending on the literature search results and the characteristics of the selected studies, a meta-analysis will be conducted where feasible. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis will be performed. Ethics and dissemination This study presents a protocol for a systematic review and does not involve human subjects. The findings will be disseminated through publication as a manuscript submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration number CRD420251163882.