Use of virtual patient software to assess student confidence and ability in communication skills and virtual patient impression: A mixed-methods approach
Abstract
Background and purpose Knowledge related to the use of virtual patients (VP) in pharmacy education is limited in relation to student satisfaction with this learning technique. This project aimed to assess students' confidence and impressions in using their communication skills with a VP and to evaluate their skills using this technology.Educational activity and setting This explanatory mixed-methods study was conducted with first-year doctor of pharmacy students. Fourteen survey items that addressed confidence in student abilities and VP impressions were analyzed. Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to compare pre- and post- scores. Student reflections were reviewed to obtain primary themes and concerns. Descriptive statistics were used for student grades.Findings Out of 205 students, 203 completed the pre-survey and 163 completed the post-survey. Responses regarding pre-post confidence indicated statistically significant improvement (p < 0.001) for 8 of 10 survey items as follows: understand history taking, conduct an organized interview, elicit subjective information, ask follow-up questions, ask questions related to severity, document subjective data, document objective data, and organize an interview. Regarding their impressions toward VPs, student responses were improved and statistically significant (p < 0.001) for 1 of 4 survey items (tools are easy to use). Forty-two students stressed the need to improve their written communication skills in the self-reflection. The average grade for subjective data was 31.48% and for objective data was 93.66%.Summary This VP program improved student confidence in their verbal and written communication skills despite low subjective data scores.
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?
Users in 4 studies reported liking that the agent had a personality and/or showed empathy, whereas users in other studies reported disliking the lack of personal connection or had difficulty empathizing with the agent or reported disliking its limited conversation and responses.
“Similarly, users in 4 studies reported liking that the agent had a personality and/or showed empathy [13,32,34,42], whereas users in other studies reported disliking the lack of personal connection or had difficulty in empathizing with the agent [35,37,50] or reported disliking its limited conversation and responses [35,56].”
From The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence Conversational Agents in Health Care: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [50]
In the 3 included studies of virtual patients, users in all 3 reported liking that it provided a platform for risk-free learning because they were not practicing on real patients.
“In the included studies, 3 of the conversational agents were virtual patients, and users in all 3 studies reported liking that it provided a platform for risk-free learning because they were not practicing on real patients [15,41,50].”
From The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence Conversational Agents in Health Care: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [50]
Only a few included studies discussed any improvement in health care provision or implications for resources.
“Unfortunately, only a few of the studies discussed any improvement in health care provision or implications for resources; 2 of the studies that suggested improvement in health care provision were evaluating virtual patients [41,50], and students in 1 study reported significantly increased confidence in their clinical skills and ability to interview patients.”
From The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence Conversational Agents in Health Care: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [50]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 31
- Authors
- Borja-Hart, N. L., Spivey, C. A., & George, C. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Tennessee Health Science Center (US)
- Venue
- Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-07
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 710-718
- ISSN
- 1877-1297 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2939330599
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 0.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning (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 patients, pharmacy education, communication skills, student self-confidence, Doctor of Pharmacy students, medical history, writing skills, student perceptions, self-reflection
- MeSH terms
- Simulation Training, Virtual Reality, Adult, Communication, Education, Pharmacy, Educational Measurement, Female, Humans, Male, Professional Competence, Students, Pharmacy, Patient Simulation, Statistics, Nonparametric, Self Efficacy
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