Virtual patient design: Exploring what works and why. A grounded theory study

Medical Education

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 595-606

  Bateman, James ^a,b   Allen, Maggie ^b   Samani, Dipti ^b   Kidd, Jane ^a   Davies, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS COVENTRY AND WARWICKSHIRE NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LEARNING; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL STUDENT; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; TEACHING; THEORETICAL MODEL; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; EDUCATION, MEDICAL; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84877822196     PISSN: 03080110     EISSN: 13652923     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/medu.12151     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Ellaway R, Poulton T, Fors U, McGee JB, Albright S. Building a virtual patient commons. Med Teach 2008;30 (2):170-4.
2. Cook DA, Triola MM. Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps. Med Educ 2009;43 (4):303-11.
3. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2008;300 (10):1181-96.
4. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Instructional design variations in Internet-based learning for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med 2010;85 (5):909-22.
5. Bateman J, Davies D. Virtual patients: are we in a new era? Acad Med 2011;86(2):151.
6. Cook DA, Erwin PJ, Triola MM. Computerised virtual patients in health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med 2010;85 (10):1589-602.
7. Huang G, Reynolds R, Candler C. Virtual patient simulation at US and Canadian medical schools. Acad Med 2007;82 (5):446-51.
8. Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet 2010;376 (9756):1923-58.
9. Clark RC, Mayer RE. E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer 2008;49-62.
10. Mayer RE, Griffith E, Jurkowitz IT, Rothman D. Increased interestingness of extraneous details in a multimedia science presentation leads to decreased learning. J Exp Psychol Appl 2008;14 (4):329-39.
11. Issa N, Schuller M, Santacaterina S, Shapiro M, Wang E, Mayer RE, DaRosa DA. Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Med Educ 2011;45 (8):818-26.
12. Huwendiek S, Reichert F, Bosse H-M, de Leng BA, van der Vleuten CPM, Haag M, Hoffman GF, Tönshoff B. Design principles for virtual patients: a focus group study among students. Med Educ 2009;43 (6):580-8.
13. van Merrienboer JJG, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Med Educ 2010;44 (1):85-93.
14. Huwendiek S, de Leng BA, Zary N, Fischer MR, Ruiz JG, Ellaway R. Towards a typology of virtual patients. Med Teach 2009;31 (8):743-8.
15. Corbin JM, Strauss AL. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd edn. London: Sage Publications 2008;65-87.
16. Bryant A, Charmaz K. The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: Sage Publications 2007;191-213.
17. Medibiquitous Virtual Patient Working Group. MedBiquitous Virtual Patient Player Specifications and Description Document V.1.0. 2010. http://www.medbiq.org/working_groups/virtual_patient/VirtualPatientPlayerSpecification.pdf. [Accessed 4 February 2013.]
18. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach 2005;27 (1):10-28.
19. Norman GR, Cook DA. Simulator training for recognition of murmurs: give a kid a hammer? Chest 2011;139(5):1257-8.
20. Smothers V, Ellaway R, Balasubramaniam C. eViP: sharing virtual patients across Europe. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008:6:1140.
21. Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd edn. London: Sage Publicatoins 1998;12-52.
22. Kennedy TJT, Lingard L. Making sense of grounded theory in medical education. Med Educ 2006:101:8.
23. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 4th edn. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications 2009;25-62.
24. Huwendiek S, de Leng BA. Virtual patient design and curricular integration evaluation toolkit. Med Educ 2010;44 (5):519.
25. Kelle U. Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory, Methods and Practice. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications 2002;19-52.
26. Bourgeault IL, Dingwall R, De Vries RG. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health Research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications 2010;289-306.
27. Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage publications 1990;8-28.
28. Page G, Bordage G, Allen T. Developing key-feature problems and examinations to assess clinical decision-making skills. Acad Med 1995;70 (3):194-201.
29. Bateman J, Davies D, Allen M. Mind wandering has an impact in electronic teaching cases. Med Educ 2012;46 (2):235.
30. Posel N, Fleiszer D, Shore BM. 12 Tips: guidelines for authoring virtual patient cases. Med Teach 2009;31 (8):701-8.
31. Begg M. Virtual patients: practical advice for clinical authors using Labyrinth. Clin Teach 2010;7 (3):202-5.
32. Berman N, Fall LH, Smith S et al. Integration strategies for using virtual patients in clinical clerkships. Acad Med 2009;84 (7):942-9.
33. Ellaway RH, Davies D. Design for learning: deconstructing virtual patient activities. Med Teach 2011;33 (4):303-10.
34. Edelbring S, Dastmalchi M, Hult H, Lundberg IE, Dahlgren LO. Experiencing virtual patients in clinical learning: a phenomenological study. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2011;16 (3):331-45.
35. Fors UG, Muntean V, Botezatu M, Zary N. Cross-cultural use and development of virtual patients. Med Teach 2009;31 (8):732-8.
36. Vash JH, Yunesian M, Shariati M, Keshvari A, Harirchi I. Virtual patients in undergraduate surgery education: a randomised controlled study. ANZ J Surg 2007;2:54-9.
37. Lee JE, Ryan-Wenger N. The 'Think Aloud' seminar for teaching clinical reasoning: a case study of a child with pharyngitis. J Pediatr Health Care 1997;11 (3):101-10.
38. Banning M. The think-aloud approach as an educational tool to develop and assess clinical reasoning in undergraduate students. Nurse Educ Today 2008;28 (1):8-14.
39. Croskerry P. Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: applications of a dual process model of reasoning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2009;14 (Suppl 1):27-35.
40. Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 2001;358 (9280):483-8.
41. Holden JD. Hawthorne effects and research into professional practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2001;7 (1):65-70.
42. Bryman A, Bell EA, Teevan JJ. Social Research Methods, 2nd edn. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press 2009;564-89.
43. Silverman D. Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, 3rd edn. London: Sage Publications 2010;121-2.
44. Bhutta ZA, Chen L, Cohen J et al. Education of health professionals for the 21st century: a global independent commission. Lancet 2010;375 (9721):1137-8.
45. Bateman J, Allen ME, Kidd J, Parsons N, Davies D. Virtual patients design and its effect on clinical reasoning and student experience: a protocol for a randomised factorial multi-centre study. BMC Med Educ 2012;12 (1):62.