Cited by 16Simulation-Based Education in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationSurgical Simulation and Training

Generative artificial intelligence in healthcare simulation-based education: A scoping review

Open access
Neo, Nicholas Wee Siong, Gunawan, Joko, Levett-Jones, Tracy, Khoo, Eng Tat, Chua, Wei Ling, Liaw, Sok Ying·2025·Clinical Simulation in Nursing

Abstract

Aims This review aimed to explore the current state of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) use in simulation-based healthcare education through a comprehensive examination of GenAI types, applications and reported outcomes. Methods A scoping review was conducted utilizing the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodological guidance. Six databases were searched from their inception until February 2025. Results We included 28 articles that were published between 2023 and 2025. Articles were mainly in the fields of medicine ( n = 14) and nursing ( n = 10). OpenAI's GPT models were most frequently used to portray simulated characters and deliver automated feedback. GenAI-enhanced simulation was generally perceived as accurate, realistic and feasible, with some evidence supporting its use as a supplement to conventional simulation and to enhance learning outcomes. Perspectives, ethical considerations and recommendations for GenAI-enhanced simulation were also highlighted. Conclusion GenAI-enhanced simulation is gaining popularity and is likely to evolve alongside human-facilitated simulation. Future developments should focus on building AI expertise among simulation educators and harnessing the synergy between human intelligence and GenAI. Further rigorous research is needed to establish best practices.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecns.2025.101819

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Existing scholarly literature on GenAI's application in healthcare often focuses almost exclusively on technical performance indicators such as accuracy rates, time efficiency, and comparative error reduction against human benchmarks.

    “Existing scholarly literature17–22 on GenAI’s application in healthcare often focuses almost exclusively on technical performance indicators such as accuracy rates, time efficiency, and comparative error reduction against human benchmarks.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neo, N. W. S., Gunawan, J., Levett-Jones, T., Khoo, E. T., Chua, W. L., & Liaw, S. Y.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Neo, Nicholas Wee Siong
Venue
Clinical Simulation in Nursing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-11
Volume
108
Pages
101819
ISSN
1876-1399 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414804561
Cited by
15
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 1
FWCI
9.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Clinical Simulation in Nursing (publishedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
Keywords
generative AI, simulation-based education, healthcare education, GPT models, standardized patients, automated feedback, medical education, nursing education, AI ethics, learning outcomes

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