Artificial Intelligence Supporting the Training of Communication Skills in the Education of Health Care Professions: Scoping Review
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Background: Communication is a crucial element of every health care profession, rendering communication skills training in all health care professions as being of great importance. Technological advances such as artificial intelligence (AI) and particularly machine learning (ML) may support this cause: it may provide students with an opportunity for easily accessible and readily available communication training. Objective: This scoping review aimed to summarize the status quo regarding the use of AI or ML in the acquisition of communication skills in academic health care professions. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search across the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, and CINAHL databases to identify articles that covered the use of AI or ML in communication skills training of undergraduate students pursuing health care profession education. Using an inductive approach, the included studies were organized into distinct categories. The specific characteristics of the studies, methods and techniques used by AI or ML applications, and main outcomes of the studies were evaluated. Furthermore, supporting and hindering factors in the use of AI and ML for communication skills training of health care professionals were outlined. Results: The titles and abstracts of 385 studies were identified, of which 29 (7.5%) underwent full-text review. Of the 29 studies, based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 12 (3.1%) were included. The studies were organized into 3 distinct categories: studies using AI and ML for text analysis and information extraction, studies using AI and ML and virtual reality, and studies using AI and ML and the simulation of virtual patients, each within the academic training of the communication skills of health care professionals. Within these thematic domains, AI was also used for the provision of feedback. The motivation of the involved agents played a major role in the implementation process. Reported barriers to the use of AI and ML in communication skills training revolved around the lack of authenticity and limited natural flow of language exhibited by the AI- and ML-based virtual patient systems. Furthermore, the use of educational AI- and ML-based systems in communication skills training for health care professionals is currently limited to only a few cases, topics, and clinical domains. Conclusions: The use of AI and ML in communication skills training for health care professionals is clearly a growing and promising field with a potential to render training more cost-effective and less time-consuming. Furthermore, it may serve learners as an individualized and readily available exercise method. However, in most cases, the outlined applications and technical solutions are limited in terms of access, possible scenarios, the natural flow of a conversation, and authenticity. These issues still stand in the way of any widespread implementation ambitions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Stamer et al. scoping review highlighted the use of AI and machine learning applications in communication training, including text analysis and virtual patient simulations.
“Stamer et al. [6] conducted a scoping review highlighting the use of AI and machine learning applications in communication training, including text analysis and virtual patient simulations.”
Perceived usefulness and digital literacy, rather than academic affiliation, are the main determinants of adoption of digital educational tools in health professions training.
“Prior research has shown that perceived usefulness and digital literacy [ 14 ], rather than academic affiliation, are the main determinants of adoption of digital educational tools in health professions training [ 15 ].”
Computer-based and web-based education are at least as effective as traditional learning in training health professionals to quit smoking.
“previous systematic reviews showing that computer-based and web-based education are at least as effective as traditional learning in training health professionals to quit smoking [ 12 – 14 ].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 74 · Cited by 160
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [6]Dickson DA Hargie OD Morrow NC Communication Skills Training for Health Professionals: An Instructor’s Handbook. 2nd edition 1997 London, UK Champman & Hall
- [19]Kossen J Kuruc F Müller ME Kersting K Lampert C Rothkopf C Einleitung Wie Maschinen lernen: Künstliche Intelligenz verständlich erklärt 2019 Wiesbaden, Germany Springer 3 10
- [28]Veritas health innovation Covidence Systematic Review Software 2023-02-23 https://www.covidence.org
- [44]Tavarnesi G Laus A Mazza R Ambrosini L Catenazzi N Vanini S Tuggener D Learning with virtual patients in medical education Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning 2018 EC-TEL '18 September 3-6, 2018 Leeds, UK 1 14
- [54]Waschkau A Steinhäuser J Bestimmung von Bedarf und Determinanten Telemedizin und eHealth: Das Wichtigste für Ärztinnen und Ärzte aller Fachrichtungen 2021 Amsterdam, The Netherlands Elsevier 1 3
- Authors
- Stamer, T., Steinhäuser, J., & Flägel, K.
- Affiliations
- University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Stamer, Tjorven
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2023-06-19
- Volume
- 25
- Pages
- e43311
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10337453
- OpenAlex
- W4367285270
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2026: 73 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 1.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
- Universität zu Lübeck
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, machine learning, communication skills training, health professions education, virtual patients, virtual reality, text analysis, automated feedback, AI adoption barriers, undergraduate medical students, simulation-based training, personalized learning
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Communication, Delivery of Health Care, Educational Status, 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