Cost-effectiveness of peer role play and standardized patients in undergraduate communication training

Abstract

BackgroundThe few studies directly comparing the methodological approach of peer role play (RP) and standardized patients (SP) for the delivery of communication skills all suggest that both methods are effective. In this study we calculated the costs of both methods (given comparable outcomes) and are the first to generate a differential cost-effectiveness analysis of both methods.MethodsMedical students in their prefinal year were randomly assigned to one of two groups receiving communication training in Pediatrics either with RP (N = 34) or 19 individually trained SP (N = 35). In an OSCE with standardized patients using the Calgary-Cambridge Referenced Observation Guide both groups achieved comparable high scores (results published). In this study, corresponding costs were assessed as man-hours resulting from hours of work of SP and tutors. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed.ResultsCost-effectiveness analysis revealed a major advantage for RP as compared to SP (112 vs. 172 man hours; cost effectiveness ratio .74 vs. .45) at comparable performance levels after training with both methods.ConclusionsWhile both peer role play and training with standardized patients have their value in medical curricula, RP has a major advantage in terms of cost-effectiveness. This could be taken into account in future decisions.

Cost-Effectiveness of Using Standardized Patients to Assess Student-Pharmacist Communication Skills

“…[15][16][17][18] The differences between the measures used in this study versus previous research may help explain the differences. Further, the students in this study participated in five cases over five weeks.…”

“…In contrast to the Bosse and colleagues study, which showed that RP led to better student outcomes than SP, our intervention consisted of one topic over the course of 5 weeks compared to nine cases covering multiple aspects of communication over a period of 3 weeks. 17 Another difference between our study and the Bosse study is the use of the modified Angoff method in the current study to establish a minimum level of competency via a cut-score. The Bosse and colleagues study did not state whether an attempt was made to establish a minimum competency score, which also may explain the differences in the conclusions between the studies.…”

“…[15][16][17][18] Recent comparative research has shown that RP/CS may be just as effective at teaching communication as SP and at a lower cost to the institution. Further, simulation with SPs requires significant time on the part of faculty members who wish to incorporate SPs into teaching and assessment.…”

“…Most of the comparative research on SP and other activelearning methods on provider-patient communication has focused on medical students or medical residents. [15][16][17][18] To our knowledge, only one of these studies critically evaluated the cost-effectiveness of incorporating SPs compared to peer role-play (RP). 17 Bosse and colleagues found that students in the RP group had better outcomes (ie, higher score) and lower costs than students in the SP group.…”

Evaluating a simulation-based telecare training program for home healthcare professionals: A trainee perspective

“…[44][45][46] In addition, this simulation modality can be initiated without requiring a huge amount of resources and is thus relatively cost-effective. [47] To evaluate whether the training program managed to meet the intended training objectives, participants were asked after each respective simulation session what they considered were the main lessons learned. According to trainees, overall learning outcomes were two-fold.…”