Virtual Standardized Patients for Mental Health Education
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Use of virtual standardised patients for mental health education with AI-driven tools supported experiential learning and skill transfer to real clinical settings.
“Emerging evidence indicated that the use of virtual standardised patients for mental health education with AI-driven tools supported experiential learning and skill transfer to real clinical settings [10].”
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