Abstract
Introduction Medical educators strive to improve their curricula to enhance the student learning experience. The use of high-fidelity simulation within basic and clinical medical science subjects has been one of these initiatives. However, there is paucity of evidence on using simulation for teaching pharmacology, and the effectiveness of this teaching modality, relative to more traditional ones, have not been sufficiently investigated. Accordingly, this study compares the effects of high-fidelity simulation, which is designed in alignment with adult and experiential learning theories, and traditional case-based tutorial sessions on the performance and perception of undergraduate Year 2 medical students in pharmacology in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Methods This study employed a convergent mixed methods approach. Forty-nine medical students were randomly assigned to one of two groups during the 16-week pharmacology course. Each group underwent one session delivered via high-fidelity simulation and another via a case-based tutorial. A short multiple-choice question quiz was administered twice (immediately upon completion of the respective sessions and 5 weeks afterwards) to assess knowledge retention. Furthermore, to explore the students’ perceptions regarding the two modes of learning delivery (independently and in relation to each other), an evaluation survey was administered following the delivery of each session. Thereafter, the iterative joint display analysis was used to develop a holistic understanding of the effect of high-fidelity simulation in comparison to traditional case-based tutorial sessions on pharmacology learning in the context of the study.
Results There was no statistically significant difference in students’ knowledge retention between high-fidelity simulation and case-based tutorial sessions. Yet, students expressed a greater preference for high-fidelity simulation, describing the corresponding sessions as more varied, better at reinforcing learning, and closer to reality. As such, the meta-inferences led to expansion of the overall understanding around students’ satisfaction, to both confirmation and expansion of the systemic viewpoint around students’ preferences, and lastly to refinement in relation to the perspective around retained knowledge.
Conclusion High-fidelity simulation was found to be as effective as case-based tutorial sessions in terms of students’ retention of knowledge. Nonetheless, students demonstrated a greater preference for high-fidelity simulation. The study advocates caution in adapting high-fidelity simulation, where careful appraisal can lend itself to identifying contexts where it is most effective.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval for the current study was granted by the Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences-Institutional Review Board (MBRU-IRB-2020-001), and electronic informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participating in the research study.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
