Health professional education is rooted in patient interaction. The utilization of the simulated participant method is a widely accepted approach in this regard, as it enables students to engage in experiences that closely resemble real patient interactions. So, the simulated participants need to be well-prepared and well-engaged in the concept of their roles. The purpose of the study is to evaluate a new model for identity formation of simulated participants based on communities of practice theory. An 8-month follow-up study with pre- and post-interviews, observations, and reflective diaries designed with a qualitative approach. The results were categorized together under the five themes: “motivation of simulated participants”, “background of simulated participants”, “interaction between simulated participants as a part of a community of practice”, “limitations from simulated participants’ perspectives”, and “roles of simulated participants in simulation”. Our model based on communities of practice theory is an effective method for the formation of identities of simulated participants. Educators have the responsibility to improve the quality of simulated participant–based simulation. Our model can be thought of as an effective tool to use in this regard.
AbdelkhalekN. M.HusseinA. M.SulaimanN.HamdyH. (2009). Faculty as simulated patients (FSPs) in assessing medical students’ clinical reasoning skills. Education and Health, 22(3), 323.
2.
AbeK.RoterD.ErbyL. H.BanN. (2011). A nationwide survey of standardized patients: Who they are, what they do, and how they experience their work. Patient Education and Counseling, 84(2), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.017
3.
AslanM.DoğanS. (2020). Dişsal motivasyon, içsel motivasyon ve performans etkileşimine kuramsal bir bakiş. Süleyman Demirel University Visionary Journal, 11(26), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.638479
4.
AuerA. M.HansonP.Brady-FryerB.Alati-ItJ.JohnsonA. L. (2020). Communities of practice in alberta health services: Advancing a learning organisation. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18(1), 86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00603-y
5.
ClelandJ. A.AbeK.RethansJ. J. (2009). The use of simulated patients in medical education: AMEE guide No 42. Medical Teacher, 31(6), 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590903002821
6.
CollinsJ. C.ChongW. W.de Almeida NetoA. C.MolesR. J.SchneiderC. R. (2021). The simulated patient method: Design and application in health services research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 17(12), 2108–2115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.04.021
7.
CollinsJ. C.MacKenzieM.SchneiderC. R.ChaarB. B.MolesR. J. (2021). A mixed-method simulated patient approach to explore implicit bias in health care: A feasibility study in community pharmacy. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 17(3), 553–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.05.003
8.
CreswellJ. W.CreswellJ. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
9.
CruessR. L.CruessS. R.SteinertY. (2018). Medicine as a community of practice: Implications for medical education. Academic Medicine, 93(2), 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001826
10.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
11.
Derfler-RozinR.PitesaM. (2020). Motivation purity bias: Expression of extrinsic motivation undermines perceived intrinsic motivation and engenders bias in selection decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 63(6), 1840–1864. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0617
12.
DoyleA. J.SullivanC.O’TooleM.TjinA.SimicevaA.CollinsN.MurphyP.AndersonM. J.MulhallC.CondronC.NestelD.MacAulayR.McNaughtonN.CoffeyF.EppichW. (2024). Training simulated participants for role portrayal and feedback practices in communication skills training: A beme scoping review: BEME guide No. 86. Medical Teacher, 46(2), 162–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2023.2241621
13.
FluetA.EssakowJ.JuM. (2022). Standardized patients’ perspectives on bias in student encounters. Academic Medicine, 97(11S), S29–S34. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004925
14.
Grau Canet-WittkampfC.DiemersA.Van den BogerdK.Schönrock-AdemaJ.DamoiseauxR.ZwartD.JaarsmaD.MolS.BombekeK.de GrootE. (2023). Learning patient-centredness with simulated/standardized patients: A realist review: BEME guide No. 68. Medical Teacher, 45(4), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2093176
15.
HaddadA. (2010). What health science students learn from playing a standardized patient in an ethics course. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 19(4), 481–487. https://doi.org/10.1017/S096318011000037X
16.
HoadleyC. (2012). What is a community of practice and how can we support it? In Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 286–299). Routledge.
17.
KimiecikJ. C.HornT. S. (2017). The big motivational picture: Examining the relationship between positive intrapersonal processes and adolescent health-promoting behaviors. Applied Developmental Science, 21(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2016.1158651
18.
KwanA.DanielsB.BergkvistS.DasV.PaiM.DasJ. (2019). Use of standardised patients for healthcare quality research in low-and middle-income countries. BMJ Global Health, 4(5), Article e001669. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001669
19.
LewisK. L.BohnertC. A.GammonW. L.HölzerH.LymanL.SmithC.ThompsonT. M.WallaceA.Gliva-McConveyG. (2017). The association of standardized patient educators (ASPE) standards of best practice (SOBP). Advances in Simulation, 2, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-017-0043-4
20.
LiuY.QieD.WangM.LiY.GuoD.ChenX.LiL.YuH.WangJ. (2023). Application of role reversal and standardized patient simulation (SPS) in the training of new nurses. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 373. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04294-1
21.
LovinkA.GroenierM.van der NietA.MiedemaH.RethansJ.-J. (2021). The contribution of simulated patients to meaningful student learning. Perspectives on Medical Education, 10(6), 341–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00684-7
22.
McGrathC.LiljedahlM.PalmgrenP. J. (2020). You say it, we say it, but how do we use it? Communities of practice: A critical analysis. Medical Education, 54(3), 188–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14021
23.
McLeanM.JohnsonP.SargeantS.GreenP. (2015). Simulated patients’ perspectives of and perceived role in medical students’ professional identity development. Simulation in Healthcare, 10(2), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0000000000000082
24.
NestelD.BearmanM. (2014). Simulated patient methodology: Theory, evidence and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
25.
NestelD.TabakD.TierneyT.Layat-BurnC.RobbA.ClarkS.MorrisonT.JonesN.EllisR.SmithC.McNaughtonN.KnickleK.HighamJ.KneeboneR. (2011). Key challenges in simulated patient programs: An international comparative case study. BMC Medical Education, 11(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-69
26.
ShowstarkM.SappioE. M.SchweickerdtL.NyoniC. N. (2022). AFRI-VIPE: Simulated patients (SPs) role in virtual interprofessional education (VIPE). Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, 26(5), Article 100492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjep.2021.100492
27.
SibbaldM.LastN.KeuhlA.AzimA.ShethU.KhalidF.BanjiF.Geekie-SousaA.YilmazD. U.MonteiroS. (2023). Challenges facing standardised patients representing equity-deserving groups: Insights from health care educators. Medical Education, 57(6), 516–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15085
28.
SommerM.FritzA. H.ThrienC.KurschA.PetersT. (2019). Simulated patients in medical education–a survey on the current status in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. GMS journal for medical education, 36(3), Doc27. https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001235
29.
StarrS. A.PlackM. M.LewisK. L.BlattB. (2021). How do standardized patients form their complex identities? The impact of interactions with medical students. Simulation in Healthcare, 16(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000456
30.
SullivanC.DoyleA. J.O’TooleM.MulhallC.McNaughtonN.EppichW. (2023). How can we help the students learn?’A grounded theory study of simulated participants as educators. Medical Teacher, 45(9), 1047–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2023.2171857
31.
SwanwickT. (2013). Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory, and practice, second edition (2nd ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118472361
32.
SwanwickT. (2018). Understanding medical education. In SwanwickT.ForrestK. A. T.O’BrienB. C. (Eds.), Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory, and practice (pp. 1–6). Wiley-Blackwell.
33.
WengerE. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
34.
Wenger-TraynerE.Wenger-TraynerB.ReidP.ClaudeB. (2023). Communities of practice within and across organizations: A guidebook. Social Learning Lab.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
