The effects of Standardized Patient-based teaching and Feedback lecture on midwifes’ clinical competence in counseling of fetal disorders screening

Document Type : Original Article


1 M.Sc. Student in Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Midwifery, Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

3 Lecturer, Department of Nursing, Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

4 Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.


Introduction: Fetal abnormality screening counseling is one of the duties of midwives according to fetal abnormality screening guidelines. Since promotion of midwives' clinical competence through efficient training system with modern educational methods is very important and necessary, therefore, this study was performed with aim to compare the effect of standardized patient-based training and feedback lecture on midwives' clinical competence in counseling of fetal abnormality screening.
Methods: This interventional randomized clinical trial was conducted on 67 licensed midwives in Mashhad in 2018. The subjects were divided into two groups of standardized patient-based training groups and feedback lecture. After doing the pre-test, a 4-hour training program was conducted for each group, and midwives' clinical competence was assessed two weeks after training, using a questionnaire and a researcher-made questionnaire of clinical competency assessment. Data were analyzed by SPSS software (version 16) and using independent t-test, paired t-test, Mann-Whitney and Chi-square tests. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Changes in mean score of clinical competency 2 weeks after the intervention were significant in both groups (p <0.001).There was no significant difference between the two groups in the mean score of clinical competence before the intervention (p = 0.711) and 2 weeks after the intervention (p = 0.412).  
Conclusion: Both methods of standardized patient-based teaching and feedback lecture is effective on promotion of midwives' clinical competence in fetal abnormality screening counseling. 


  1. Dane AC, Peterson M, Miller YD. Talking points: women’s information needs for informed decision-making about noninvasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome. J Genet Couns 2018; 27(5):1258-1264.
  2. Summers AM, Langlois S, Wyatt P, Douglas Wilson R, Allen V, Blight C, et al. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2007; 29(2):146-161.
  3. Sadler TW, Langman J. Langman's Medical Embryology. 11nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott William & Wilkins; 2010.
  4. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, Gilstrap III LC, Wenstrom KD. Williams Obstetrics. 22nd ed. New York: McGrow-Hill; 2005.
  5. Bermudez BE, de Oliveira CM, de Lima Cat MN, Magdalena NI, Celli A. Gastrointestinal disorders in Down syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics 2019; 179(8):1426-1431.
  6. Anderson CL, Brown CE. Fetal chromosomal abnormalities: antenatal screening and diagnosis. Am Fam Physician 2009; 79(2):117-23.
  7. Hosseini H, Safari F. Disability, Poverty and Social Exclusion. Social Welfare Quarterly 2008; 8(30 and 31):265-284.
  8. Košec V, Zec I, Tišlarić-Medenjak D, Kuna K, Šimundić AM, Lajtman-Križaić M, et al. Pregnant women’s knowledge and attitudes to prenatal screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: Croatian multicentric survey. Coll Antropol 2013; 37(2):483-9.
  9. Alldred SK, Takwoingi Y, Guo B, Pennant M, Deeks JJ, Neilson JP, et al. First and second trimester serum tests with and without first trimester ultrasound tests for Down's syndrome screening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 3:CD012599.
  10. Rabiee M, Jouhari Z, Pirasteh A. Knowledge of Prenatal Screening, Down Syndrome, Amniocentesis, and Related Factors among Iranian Pregnant Women: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery 2019; 7(2):150-160.
  11. Wildschut H, Weiner C, Peters T. When to Screen in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2nd ed. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006.
  12. Seven M, Akyuz A, Eroglu K, Daack-Hirsch S, Skirton H. Women's knowledge and use of prenatal screening tests. J Clin Nurs 2017; 26(13-14):1869-1877.
  13. Kordi M, Riyazi S, Lotfalizade M, Shakeri MT, Suny HJ. A comparison of face to face and group education on informed choice and decisional conflict of pregnant women about screening tests of fetal abnormalities. J Educ Health Prom 2018; 7:6.
  14. Foster J, Heath A. Midwifery and the development of nursing capacity in the Dominican Republic: Caring, clinical competence, and case management. J Midwifery Womens Health 2007; 52(5):499-504.
  15. Skirton H, Stephen N, Doris F, Cooper M, Avis M, Fraser DM. Preparedness of newly qualified midwives to deliver clinical care: an evaluation of pre-registration midwifery education through an analysis of key events. Midwifery 2012; 28(5):e660-6.
  16. Mohamadirizi S, Kohan Sh, Shafei F, Mohamadirizi S. The relationship between clinical competence and clinical self-efficacy among nursing and Midwifery students. Int J Pediatr 2015; 3(6.2):1117-23.
  17. Farshbaf Khalili A, Shahnazi M, Hajizadeh K, Shekari Khaniani M. Down syndrome screening methods in Iranian pregnant women. J Caring Sci 2012; 1(3):145-151.
  18. Bandiera G, Kuper A, Mylopoulos M, Whitehead C, Ruetalo M, Kulasegaram K, et al. Back from basics: integration of science and practice in medical education. Med Edu 2018; 52(1):78-85.
  19. Khadivzadeh T, Ardaghi M, Mirzaii K, Mazloum SR. The Effect of Interactive Educational Workshops with or Without Standardized Patients on the Self-Efficacy of Midwifery Students in Sexual Health Counseling. Journal of Midwifery and Reproductive Health 2016; 4(2):562-570.
  20. Saif AA. Modern Educational Psychology: Psychology of learning and instruction. 6nd ed. Tehran, Iran: Doran Pub; 2015.
  21. Saboori M, Jafari F, Monajemi AR. The Effect of Employing Standardized Patient on History Taking Skills of Medical Students. Iranian Journal of Medical Education 2010; 10(3):276-283.
  22. Joyce B, Calhoun E, Hopkins D. Models of learning, tools for teaching. 3nd ed. Open University Press; 2008.
  23. Schwartz LR, Fernandez R, Kouyoumjian SR, Jones KA, Compton S. A randomized comparison trial of case-based learning versus human patient simulation in medical student education. Acad Emerg Med 2007; 14(2):130-7.
  24. Afrasiabifar A, Najafi Doulatabad Sh, Mosavi A. Comparing the effect of feedback lecture and conventional lecture on the students’ learning and satisfaction to teach intensive nursing cares. Journal of Nursing Education 2014; 3(3):69-78.
  25. Salimi T, Shahbazi L, Mojahed S, Ahmadieh MH, Dehghanpour MH. Comparing the effects of lecture and work in small groups on nursing students' skills in calculating medication dosage. Iranian journal of medical education 2007; 7(1):79-84.
  26. Ogden WR. Reaching all the students: The feedback lecture. Journal of Instructional Psychology 2003; 30(1):22.
  27. Chavan P, Gupta S, Mitra R. A Novel Feedback System for Pedagogy Refinement in Large Lecture Classrooms. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computers in Education. Philippines: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education; 2018.
  28. Heydari T, Kariman N, Heydari Z, Amiri Farahani L. Comparison effects of feedback lecture and conventional lecture method on learning and quality of teaching. Arak Medical University Journal 2010; 12(4):34-43.
  29. Dal Bello-Haas V, Bazyk S, Ekelman B, Milidonis M. A study comparing the effectiveness of the feedback lecture method with the traditional lecture method. Journal of Physical Therapy Education 1999; 13(2):36-40.
  30. Park KH, Park SG. The effect of communication training using standardized patients on nonverbal behaviors in medical students. Korean J Med Educ 2018; 30(2):153-159.
  31. Zohani M. compairing the effects of two teaching methods of role playing & feedback lecture on attitude and performance of midwifery students aboute observing the ethical and legal principles of the healt service recipient's rights.[thesis]; mashhad university medical sciences; 2016.
  32. Chakravarthy B, ter Haar E, Subraya Bhat S, Eric McCoy C, Denmark TK, Lotfipour S. Simulation in Medical School Education: Review for Emergency Medicine. West J Emerg Med 2011; 12(4):461-466.
  33. Ten Eyck RP, Tews M, Ballester JM. Improved medical student satisfaction and test performance with a simulation-based emergency medicine curriculum: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med 2009; 54(5):684-91.
  34. Aliakbari F, Parvin N, Heidari M, Haghani F. Learning theories application in nursing education. J Educ Health Promot 2015; 4:2.
  35. Emerson RJ. Nursing education in the clinical setting. 1nd ed. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006.
  36. Reyhan F, Mete A, Deniz Sayiner F, Celik N. Evaluating the Views of Midwifery Students about Simulation Education. International Journal of Caring Sciences 2018; 11(1):239-45.
  37. Maslovitz S, Pauzner D, Lessing JB, Ziv A, Kupferminc M, Many A. Recurrent obstetric management mistakes identified by simulation. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004; 191(6):S128.
  38. Sajadi SA, Farsi Z. Simulation- Based Education. Journal of Educational Studies Aja University of Medical Science 2015; 3(2):20-30.
  39. Reynolds A, Ayres-de-Campos D, Pereira-Cavaleiro A, Ferreira-Bastos L. Simulation for teaching normal delivery and shoulder dystocia to midwives in training. Educ Health 2010; 23(3):405.
  40. Zarif Sanaee N. The Assessment and Comparison of Different Schools of Learning in Designing Electronic Lessons. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences (IJVLMS) 2012; 2(3):51-60.