Faculty standardized patients versus traditional teaching method to improve clinical competence among traditional Chinese medicine students: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Background Standardized patients (SPs) simulation training models have been widely used in various fields, the study of using SPs in Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is still a new filed. Previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of occupational SP for TCM (OSP-TCM), which has an increasingly problem of high time and financial costs. The faculty SPs for TCM (FSP-TCM) simulation training model may provide a better alternative. This study aims to test and determine whether FSP-TCM simulations are more cost-effective than OSP-TCM and traditional educational models to improve the clinical competence of TCM students. Methods This study was a single-blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial conducted between February 2023 and October 2023. The participants were randomized into FSP-TCM group, OSP-TCM group and traditionally taught group (TT group) in the ratio of 1:1:1. The duration of this training program was 12 weeks (36 credit hours). Formative and summative assessments were integrated to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching and learning. Three distinct questionnaires were utilized to collect feedback from students, SPs, and teachers at the conclusion of the course. Additionally, analysis of cost comparisons between OSP-TCM and FSP-TCM were performed in the study. Results The study comprised a total of 90 students, with no dropouts during the research. In the formative evaluation, students assigned to both the FSP-TCM and OSP-TCM groups demonstrated higher overall scores compared to those in the TT group. Notably, their performance in “physical examination” (Pa = 0.01, Pb = 0.04, Pc = 0.93) and “comprehensive ability” (Pa = 0.01, Pb = 0.006, Pc = 0.96) significantly exceeded that of the TT group. In the summary evaluation, both SP-TCM groups students outperforms TT group in the online systematic knowledge test (Pa = 0.019, Pb = 0.04, Pc = 0.97), the application of TCM technology (Pa = 0.01, Pb = 0.03, Pc = 0.93) and real-time assessment (Pa= 0.003, Pb = 0.01, Pc = 0.93). The feedback questionnaire demonstrated that both SP-TCM groups showed higher levels of agreement for this course in “satisfaction with the course” (Pa = 0.03; Pb = 0.02) and “enhanced TCM clinical skills” (Pa = 0.02; Pb = 0.03) than TT group. The SP questionnaire showed that more FSPs than OSPs in “provided professional feedback” (FSPs: strongly agree 30%, agree 50% vs. OSPs: strongly agree 20%, agree 40%. P = 0.69), and in “gave hints” during the course (FSPs: strongly agree 10%, agree 30% vs. OSPs: strongly agree 0%, agree 10%. P = 0.42). It is noteworthy that FSP-TCM was significantly lower than the OSP-TCM in overall expense (FSP-TCM $7590.00 vs. OSP-TCM $17415.60), and teachers have a positive attitude towards the FSP-TCM. Conclusion FSP-TCM training mode showed greater effectiveness than traditional teaching method in improving clinical competence among TCM students. It was feasible, practical, and cost-effective, and may serve as an alternative method to OSP-TCM simulation.