Cited by 38Simulation-Based Education in HealthcareInnovations in Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Virtual Standardized Patients for Mental Health Education

Reger, Greg M., Norr, Aaron M., Gramlich, Michael A., Buchman, Jennifer M.·2021·Current Psychiatry Reports

Abstract

Purpose of review The training of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals requires education on a range of interpersonal, communication, and psychotherapy techniques. Classroom and workshop training must be augmented by experiential learning with feedback for skill implementation with fidelity. Virtual standardized patients (VSPs) are computerized conversational agents that can support experiential learning through standardized, consequence-free training environments at reduced costs.Recent findings Research on mental health VSPs is rife with feasibility and acceptability pilot studies across various training populations and settings. Users have generally reported positive reactions to training with VSPs, though frustrations with some VSP speech recognition or VSP response relevance has been reported. Several studies have demonstrated a promising transfer of clinical skills from VSP training to human standardized patients and randomized trials supporting improved skill relative to reading or academic study are encouraging. As technology improves and natural language processing and accurate computer response generation for broad ranging conversational topics emerges, the field would benefit from research on the characteristics of effective VSPs for a range of purposes and trainee populations. Well-designed randomized evaluations of VSPs relative to best practices in education are needed, particularly regarding the impact of VSPs on clinical practice among actual patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11920-021-01273-5

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 58 · Cited by 38

Authors
Reger, G. M., Norr, A. M., Gramlich, M. A., & Buchman, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • VA Puget Sound Health Care System (US)
Corresponding author
Reger, Greg M.
Venue
Current Psychiatry Reports
Published
2021-07-15
Volume
23
Issue
9
Pages
57-57
ISSN
  • 1523-3812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-1645
OpenAlex
W3179149357
Cited by
38
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4
FWCI
0.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Psychiatry Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
virtual standardized patients, mental health professional training, experiential learning, speech recognition, natural language processing, psychiatric training, feasibility and acceptability
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Communication, Health Education, Health Personnel, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review