Article Sidebar
Published:
Jun 10, 2026Keywords:
Article Details
The author(s) retain copyright on work published by AOSIS unless specified otherwise.
Licensing and publication rights
Author(s) of work published by AOSIS are required to grant AOSIS the unlimited rights to publish the definitive work in any format, language and medium, for any lawful purpose. AOSIS requires journal authors to publish their work in open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.
The authors retain the non-exclusive right to do anything they wish with the published article(s), provided attribution is given to the applicable journal with details of the original publication, as set out in the official citation of the article published in the journal. The retained right specifically includes the right to post the article on the authors’ or their institution’s websites or in institutional repositories.
Previously published work may have been published under a different licence. We advise the community that if they would like to reuse the work to consult the applicable licence at article level.
Note: If you need to comply with your funding body policy, you can apply for the CC BY license after your manuscript is accepted for publication.
Main Article Content
Perceptions of Emergency Medical Care students on high-fidelity manikins versus standardised patients: Insights from a pilot mixed-methods study
Karien Henrico
Getrude M. Motadi
Abstract
Background: Simulation-based education is central to Emergency Medical Care (EMC) training, particularly in preparing students for high-pressure, pre-hospital environments. High-fidelity manikins (HFMs) and standardised patients (SPs) are widely used simulation
modalities; however, comparative evidence from low- to middle-income countries remains limited. Understanding student satisfaction with these modalities is important for ensuring educational quality and making informed resource allocation.
Aim: This study explored EMC students’ satisfaction with HFMs and SPs to inform pedagogical and resource-related decisions.
Setting: The study was conducted in a university-based simulation laboratory at a South African higher education institution.
Methods: A pilot mixed-methods design was employed. Fifteen first-year EMC students completed the same clinical simulation scenario using both a SP and a HFM. Satisfaction was measured using a revised Satisfaction Scale for High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation and two open-ended questions. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative responses were analysed thematically.
Results: High levels of satisfaction were reported for both simulation modalities. Standardised patients received higher satisfaction scores for realism, theory-practice integration and self-confidence, while HFMs were rated more favourably for practising technical skills and learning from mistakes. Qualitative findings indicated that SPs enhanced realism and engagement but were associated with increased stress.
Conclusion: Despite the small cohort, clear preferences and educational implications emerged. The findings support the use of blended simulation approaches and highlight the need for further, larger-scale research.
Contribution: This study provides preliminary evidence to inform simulationbased curriculum design and resource allocation in EMC education within resource-constrained contexts.
