Effects of student standardized patients combined with situational simulation on teaching outcomes of acute and severe gastrointestinal tumors

Table 1 Basic information

Characteristic	Observation group (n = 100)	Control group (n = 100)	t/χ²	P value
Age (year), mean ± SD	21.44 ± 1.66	21.63 ± 1.77	0.87	0.384
Sex (male:female)	21:79	52:48	4.12	0.042
Educational level, n (%)
Bachelor’s degree	85 (85.0)	83 (83.0)
Associate degree	15 (15.0)	17 (17.0)

SD: Standard deviation.

Table 2 Comparison of the teaching effects between the two groups

Group	Case	Theoretical results	Operating results
Observation	100	87.41 ± 4.06	89.05 ± 6.44
Control	100	75.22 ± 4.17	79.14 ± 6.23
t	-	20.945	11.060
P value	-	< 0.001	< 0.001

Data are presented as mean ± SD.

Table 3 Comparison of the comprehensive qualities of the two groups

Index	Observation (n = 100)	Control (n = 100)	t	P value
Make the classroom atmosphere more lively	3.01 ± 0.44	2.41 ± 0.35	10.672	< 0.001
Enhance students’ interest in learning	2.98 ± 0.52	2.12 ± 0.29	14.444	< 0.001
Improve students’ subjective initiative	2.86 ± 0.41	2.08 ± 0.30	15.353	< 0.001
Improve students’ ability in case analysis and judgment	2.92 ± 0.36	2.45 ± 0.31	9.893	< 0.001
Improve the students’ condition observation ability	2.96 ± 0.44	2.23 ± 0.36	12.841	< 0.001
Improve communication ability between students and patients	3.11 ± 0.37	2.55 ± 0.40	10.277	< 0.001
Improve communication ability between students and their families	3.19 ± 0.30	2.62 ± 0.36	12.164	< 0.001
Improve students’ teamwork ability	3.07 ± 0.29	2.50 ± 0.44	10.817	< 0.001
Improve students’ ability to analyze and solve problems	3.12 ± 0.53	2.48 ± 0.50	8.784	< 0.001
Improve students’ ability to respond to various emergencies	2.98 ± 0.46	2.11 ± 0.35	15.052	< 0.001
Cultivate students’ awareness of humanistic care for patients	2.83 ± 0.45	2.09 ± 0.22	14.773	< 0.001
Cultivate students’ clinical thinking about patients	2.99 ± 0.47	2.32 ± 0.37	11.201	< 0.001
Cultivate students’ sense of professional responsibility	2.86 ± 0.55	2.27 ± 0.34	9.125	< 0.001
Improve students’ theory and skills	2.91 ± 0.33	2.39 ± 0.30	11.660	< 0.001
Improve students’ comprehensive quality and ability	3.21 ± 0.41	2.67 ± 0.44	8.979	< 0.001

Data are presented as mean ± SD.

Table 4 Comparison of learning satisfaction between the two student groups

Group	Case	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Unsatisfied	Total satisfaction
Observation	100	42 (42.00)	44 (44.00)	12 (12.00)	2 (2.00)	98 (98.00)
Control	100	39 (39.00)	40 (40.00)	12 (12.00)	9 (9.00)	91 (91.00)
χ2	-	-	-	-	-	4.714
P value	-	-	-	-	-	0.030

Data are presented as n (%).