Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 18:12:1601116.
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1601116. eCollection 2025.

Is the use of standardized patients more effective than role-playing in medical education? A meta-analysis

Jingyuan Xiao  1 , Xinjian Fu  1
Affiliations

Is the use of standardized patients more effective than role-playing in medical education? A meta-analysis

Jingyuan Xiao et al. Front Med (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of using Standardized patients (SPs) and Role-playing (RP) in medical education. It is crucial to understand the differences in the effects of SPs and RP. However, the existing measurement results are varied, and the findings lack robustness.

Methods: We collected the results of various experiments and conducted a meta-analysis. In total, 10 articles and 27 effect sizes were included in the analysis, involving 721 students.

Results: The meta-analysis results showed that compared to the RP method, using SPs significantly improved students' self-confidence (effect size = 0.415). However, in other aspects, the two methods showed similar outcomes. We observed that the effectiveness of SPs teaching methods increased over time.

Conclusion: SPs effectively enhance students' self-confidence by simulating diverse roles, situations, and real-world work scenarios. This study provides a comprehensive comparative perspective on RP and SPs.

Keywords: clinical simulation; medical education; meta-analysis; role-playing; standardized patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Flowchart of literature inclusion.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Assessment of the risk of bias in the included articles.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
The funnel plot shows publication bias among outcome type the included studies. Each point represents a study, distributed around the center line.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Forest plot of outcomes type for SPs compared with RP. Favors A, SPs; Favors B, RP.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Bastiaens I, Beesley C. Economic hardship and welfare policy preferences: What can the COVID-19 pandemic tell us? Polit Stud Rev. (2024) 23:313–32. 10.1177/14789299241252386 - DOI
    1. Lewinson T, Washington T, Allen S, Murphey J, Onsando W. “We’re kind of on the back burner”: Psychological distress and coping among medical social workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Soc Work Health Care. (2023) 62:243–62. 10.1080/00981389.2023.2221718 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grønkjær M, Voldbjerg S, Jørgensen L, Kusk K, Laugesen B. Establishing and leading a cross-institutional partnership to integrate fundamentals of care into clinical practice, nursing education and research. J Adv Nurs. (2023) 79:951–60. 10.1111/jan.15366 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bokken L, van Dalen J, Rethans J. The case of “Miss Jacobs”: Adolescent simulated patients and the quality of their role playing, feedback, and personal impact. Simul Healthc. (2010) 5:315–9. 10.1097/SIH.0b013e3181ddcd71 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Becker K, Rose L, Berg J, Park H, Shatzer J. The teaching effectiveness of standardized patients. J Nurs Educ. (2006) 45:103–11. 10.3928/01484834-20060401-03 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources