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

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.