Bohnert, CarrieCarrieBohnertLewis, KarenKarenLewisBrem, BeateBeateBrem0000-0002-0551-9587Smith, CathyCathySmithWebster, TimTimWebsterTierny, TanjaTanjaTiernyYelen, MarshaMarshaYelen2025-06-192025-06-192025-06-02https://boris-portal.unibe.ch/handle/20.500.12422/212223Introduction/Overview/Purpose The Standards of Practice Committee sought to understand how authors cited the ASPE SOBPs1 in scholarly literature between 2017 and 2024. To answer this question, the authors undertook a scoping review using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework2. By examining citation indices from Web of Science and Google Scholar, authors identified over 300 publications for review. Methodology & Methods The authors developed a data extraction tool and reviewed the publications in Covidence systematic review software3. Along with noting which aspects of the SOBPs are most referenced, the authors collected additional data including location, terminology, and professions to which the SP methodology was applied. To achieve satisfactory reliability across reviewers, the authors participated in multiple calibration sessions. Two authors reviewed each publication, and a smaller group of authors who demonstrated a high degree of fidelity to the data extraction instrument resolved conflicts. Results/Outcome/Discussion Preliminary findings indicate that a range of publication types appeared in the review, including research articles, theses, book chapters, innovation reports, and scenarios. Many articles focused solely on SP methodology, while others either examined hybrid simulation or compared SP methodology with another simulation modality. While the most frequent learner professions discussed were medicine and nursing, other professions included athletic training, audiology, chaplaincy, art therapy, social work, pharmacy, and speech-language pathology. Authors used a range of terms to describe SPs, including simulated patient, standardized patient, and simulated patient actor. Several publications described “using SPs” rather than “using SP methodology.” Finally, the most frequent aspects appearing in our SOBP review were the definition of SP, safety, case development, and training. Conclusion Analyzing the hundreds of publications that cite the ASPE SOBPs will afford our professional community a deeper understanding of where, how, and with whom SP methodology has been implemented and researched. These measures will supplement what is known about our profession within ASPE by capturing work that happened outside our association. The outcomes of this review may provide a roadmap for future strategic planning, professional development, and scholarly work.enconference_item