The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Enhancing Empathic Communication in Healthcare Education Through Virtual Conversations: Leveraging Large Language Models for Real-Time Feedback
Abstract
Virtual conversations are increasingly utilized in healthcare education to enhance verbal empathic communication skills through tailored feedback on trainees’ responses. These conversations, supported by modalities such as speech, animation, and gestures, are highly customizable and accessible via the internet, bypassing the need for head-mounted displays (HMDs). However, training models to accurately evaluate empathic responses and generate human-like language with actionable suggestions remains a challenge. The advent of large language models (LLMs) provides new solutions to these challenges. This paper examines the impact of GPT-4-generated feedback on the empathic expressions of health professions trainees during virtual conversations. We enrolled 72 students from nursing and dental disciplines in an Interprofessional Collaborative Care course at the University of Florida. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one received feedback and suggestions from GPT-4 during conversations, while the other did not. We collected data on the perceived accuracy and helpfulness of the feedback from the intervention group. Using the Empathic Communication Coding System (ECCS) and GPT-4 Turbo, we assessed and compared the empathy levels of participants between the two groups. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine differences in average empathy levels. Results showed that participants receiving GPT-4 feedback had significantly higher median empathy levels than those without feedback. Feedback’s accuracy and utility were also affirmed by the participants. This study highlights the effectiveness of integrating LLMs like GPT-4 into virtual conversations for enhancing training outcomes in healthcare education.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
Yao et al. developed a related LLM-powered patient dialog system.
“Yao et al. developed a related LLM-powered patient dialog system42;”
From A large language model digital patient system enhances ophthalmology history taking skills (2025) · cites this paper as [42]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 41
- 10.1109/TSE.2021.3078384 · DOI
- Douglas G Altman. 1990. Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall/CRC. 404–408 pages.
- Susan Askew and Caroline Lodge. 2004. Gifts, ping-pong and loops–linking feedback and learning. In Feedback for learning. Routledge, 1–18.
- 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2008.00525.x · DOI
- Neal Benedict. 2010. Virtual patients and problem-based learning in advanced therapeutics. American journal of pharmaceutical education 74, 8 (2010), 143.
- Timothy Bickmore and Justine Cassell. 2005. Social dialongue with embodied conversational agents. Advances in natural multimodal dialogue systems (2005), 23–54.
- Michael Borish, Andrew Cordar, Adriana Foster, Thomas Kim, James Murphy, and Benjamin Lok. 2014. Utilizing real-time human-assisted virtual humans to increase real-world interaction empathy. Kansei Engineering & Emotion Research (KEER’14) 15 (2014).
- 10.1145/2897366 · DOI
- Annette Burgess, Christie van Diggele, Chris Roberts, and Craig Mellis. 2020. Feedback in the clinical setting. BMC medical education 20 (2020), 1–5.
- Carma L Bylund and Gregory Makoul. 2002. Empathic communication and gender in the physician–patient encounter. Patient education and counseling 48, 3 (2002), 207–216.
- Carma L Bylund and Gregory Makoul. 2005. Examining empathy in medical encounters: an observational study using the empathic communication coding system. Health communication 18, 2 (2005), 123–140.
- Jacob Cohen. 1968. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit.Psychological bulletin 70, 4 (1968), 213.
- 10.3109/13561820.2015.1021002 · DOI
- Frans Derksen, Jozien Bensing, and Antoine Lagro-Janssen. 2013. Effectiveness of empathy in general practice: a systematic review. British journal of general practice 63, 606 (2013), e76–e84.
- Sherryn Maree Evans, Catherine Ward, and Scott Reeves. 2019. Online interprofessional education facilitation: A scoping review. Medical teacher 41, 2 (2019), 215–222.
- 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000142 · DOI · Paper page
- A Foster, J Harms, B Ange, B Rossen, B Lok, S Lind, and C Palladino. 2014. Empathic communication in medical students’ interactions with mental health virtual patient scenarios: a descriptive study using the Empathic Communication Coding System. Austin J Psychiatry Behav Sci 1, 3 (2014), 6.
- William G Graziano, Meara M Habashi, Brad E Sheese, and Renée M Tobin. 2007. Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: a person × situation perspective.Journal of personality and social psychology 93, 4 (2007), 583.
- Teresa Guilera, Iolanda Batalla, and Jorge Soler-González. 2018. Empathy and specialty preference in medical students. Follow-up study and feedback. Educación Médica 19 (2018), 153–161. · DOI
- Patrick Kenny, Arno Hartholt, Jonathan Gratch, William Swartout, David Traum, Stacy Marsella, and Diane Piepol. 2007. Building interactive virtual humans for training environments. In Proceedings of i/itsec, Vol. 174. 911–916.
- 10.1007/978-3-540-85483-8_40 · DOI
- 10.1136/medethics-2019-105921 · DOI
- Andrea Kleinsmith, Diego Rivera-Gutierrez, Glen Finney, Juan Cendan, and Benjamin Lok. 2015. Understanding empathy training with virtual patients. Computers in human behavior 52 (2015), 151–158.
- Yoon Kyung Lee, Inju Lee, Minjung Shin, Seoyeon Bae, and Sowon Hahn. 2023. Chain of empathy: Enhancing empathetic response of large language models based on psychotherapy models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04915 (2023). · arXiv
- Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019). · arXiv
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01008 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11606-012-2063-z · DOI
- 10.1109/ICALT.2016.110 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-1-4842-5741-8_2 · DOI
- 10.1038/s42256-022-00593-2 · DOI · Paper page
- Ashish Sharma, Adam S Miner, David C Atkins, and Tim Althoff. 2020. A computational approach to understanding empathy expressed in text-based mental health support. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.08441 (2020). · arXiv
- 10.1016/j.nurpra.2013.07.004 · DOI
- Eleanor J Sullivan, Sandra M Handley, and Helen Connors. 1994. The role of nurses in primary care: managing alcohol-abusing patients. Alcohol health and research world 18, 2 (1994), 158.
- 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2518158 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ecns.2013.08.005 · DOI
- Rachel Winter, Eyad Issa, Nia Roberts, Robert I Norman, and Jeremy Howick. 2020. Assessing the effect of empathy-enhancing interventions in health education and training: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ open 10, 9 (2020), e036471.
- Benedikt Wisniewski, Klaus Zierer, and John Hattie. 2020. The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in psychology 10 (2020), 487662.
- 10.1145/3514197.3549621 · DOI
- 10.1145/3383652.3423916 · DOI
- Heng Yao, Alexandre Gomes de Siqueira, Megan L Rogers, Sarah Bloch-Elkouby, Olivia Lawrence, Giuseppe Sarli, Adriana Foster, Serge A Mitelman, Igor Galynker, and Benjamin Lok. 2024. The impact of scaffolded and non-scaffolded suicidal virtual human interaction training on clinician emotional self-awareness, empathic communication, and clinical efficacy. BMC medical education 24, 1 (2024), 413.
- 10.1186/s12909-022-03312-y · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A large language model digital patient system enhances ophthalmology history taking skills
Luo, M.-J., Bi, S., Pang, J., Liu, L., Tsui, C.-K., Lai, Y., Chen, W., Yang, Y., Xu, K., Zhao, L., et al. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01841-6 · Cited by 39
“While there have been feasibility studies exploring the use of LLMs in medical education 18,30 , such as those by Potter & Jefferies 41 and Yao et al. 42 , these studies primarily served as proofs-of-concept without rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or comprehensive validation.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Yao, H., Gomes de Siqueira, A., Johnson, M., Pileggi, R., Blue, A., Bumbach, M. D., Love, R., & Lok, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Florida (US)
- University of Florida, USA
- ORCID
- Venue
- Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-09-30
- Pages
- 41-50
- OpenAlex
- W4402957955
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 9
- FWCI
- 17.52
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality (SVR) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- empathic communication, virtual conversation, large language models, GPT-4, real-time feedback, healthcare education, nursing students, dental students, empathy measurement, AI-generated feedback
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