High-fidelity patient simulation (HFPS) is expensive in money and faculty resources. There has been a recent push to increase the use of HFPS for undergraduates to teach basic science. However, it is still unclear if HFPS is superior to other cost-effective modalities for learning, and there have been limited studies comparing HFPS directly with other methods. The purpose of this study was to compare learning between three groups: 1) students who participated in a HFPS after reading material (RS); 2) students who reread material (RR) individually; and 3) students who had no intervention or reading (CON). Quizzes (10 true/false questions) were given presimulation, immediately after the simulation (post-sim 1), and 1 wk later to all groups (post-sim 2). Ninety-seven undergraduate students consented to include their data in the study. All groups scored the same on the presimulation quiz (median of 6). The RR and RS scored significantly higher than the CON group on post-sim 1 (medians 8 vs. 6). All groups performed similarly on post-sim 2. A questionnaire also showed that students had increased perceived confidence about pathophysiology. These data suggest that a single-time use of HFPS for knowledge learning for undergraduate students is not more effective than other methods. Future studies need to determine whether increasing the number of HFPS and developing social learning networks could make HFPS more effective for undergraduates. Additionally, future studies should focus on soft skill development, such as confidence, critical thinking, and teamwork/communication skills, as opposed to knowledge acquisition.
Keywords: active learning; simulation; undergraduates.