↓ Skip to main content

Ethical reasoning through simulation: a phenomenological analysis of student experience

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Simulation, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ethical reasoning through simulation: a phenomenological analysis of student experience
Published in
Advances in Simulation, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41077-016-0027-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gareth Lewis, Melissa McCullough, Alexander P Maxwell, Gerard J. Gormley

Abstract

Medical students transitioning into professional practice feel underprepared to deal with the emotional complexities of real-life ethical situations. Simulation-based learning (SBL) may provide a safe environment for students to probe the boundaries of ethical encounters. Published studies of ethics simulation have not generated sufficiently deep accounts of student experience to inform pedagogy. The aim of this study was to understand students'lived experiencesas they engaged with the emotional challenges of managing clinical ethical dilemmas within a SBL environment. This qualitative study was underpinned by an interpretivist epistemology. Eight senior medical students participated in an interprofessional ward-based SBL activity incorporating a series of ethically challenging encounters. Each student wore digital video glasses to capture point-of-view (PoV) film footage. Students were interviewed immediately after the simulation and the PoV footage played back to them. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. An interpretative phenomenological approach, using an established template analysis approach, was used to iteratively analyse the data. Four main themes emerged from the analysis: (1) 'Authentic on all levels?', (2)'Letting the emotions flow', (3) 'Ethical alarm bells' and (4) 'Voices of children and ghosts'. Students recognised many explicit ethical dilemmas during the SBL activity but had difficulty navigating more subtle ethical and professional boundaries. In emotionally complex situations, instances of moral compromise were observed (such as telling an untruth). Some participants felt unable to raise concerns or challenge unethical behaviour within the scenarios due to prior negative undergraduate experiences. This study provided deep insights into medical students' immersive and embodied experiences of ethical reasoning during an authentic SBL activity. By layering on the human dimensions of ethical decision-making, students can understand their personal responses to emotion, complexity and interprofessional working. This could assist them in framing and observing appropriate ethical and professional boundaries and help smooth the transition into clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Researcher 7 11%
Other 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 19 30%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 16%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 15 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 November 2020.
All research outputs
#3,453,403
of 24,950,117 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Simulation
#142
of 262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,030
of 373,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Simulation
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,950,117 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.