Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 10, 2026

Simulator Training for Endovascular Neurosurgery
Published on: May 6, 2020
Web-Based AI-Driven Virtual Patient Simulator Versus Actor-Based Simulation for Teaching Consultation Skills:
Edward G Tyrrell1, Sardip K Sandhu1, Kathryn Berry2
1Primary Care Education Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Room C34, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottinghamshire, NG7 2UH, United Kingdom, 44 1158231418.
Background:
There is a need to increase health care professional training capacity to meet global needs by 2030. Effective communication is essential for delivering safe and effective patient care. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies may provide a solution. However, evidence for high-fidelity virtual patient simulators using unrestricted 2-way verbal conversation for communication skills training is lacking.
Objective:
This study aims to compare a fully automated AI-driven voice recognition-based virtual patient simulator with traditional actor-based consultation skills simulated training in undergraduate medical students for differences in developing self-rated communication skills, student satisfaction scores, and direct cost comparison.
Methods:
Using an open-label randomized crossover design, a single web-based AI-driven communication skills training session (AI-CST) was compared with a single face-to-face actor-based consultation skills training session (AB-CST) in undergraduates at 2 UK medical schools. Offline total cohort recruitment was used, with an opt-out option. Pre-post intervention surveys using 10-point linear scales were used to derive outcomes. The primary outcome was the difference in self-reported attainment of communication skills between interventions. Secondary outcomes were differences in student satisfaction and the cost comparison of delivering both interventions.
Results:
Of 396 students, 378 (95%) completed at least 1 survey. Both modalities significantly increased self-reported communication skills attainment (AI-CST: mean difference 1.14, 95% CI 0.97-1.32 points; AB-CST: mean difference 1.50, 95% CI 1.35-1.66 points; both P<.001). Attainment increase was lower for AI-CST than AB-CST (by mean difference 0.36, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.13 points; P=.04). Overall satisfaction was lower for AI-CST than AB-CST (8.09 vs 9.21; mean difference -1.13, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.92 for AI-CST vs AB-CST; P<.001). The estimated costs of AI-CST and AB-CST were £33.48 (US $42.22) and £61.75 (US $77.87) per student, respectively.
Conclusions:
AI-CST and AB-CST were both effective at improving self-reported communication skills attainment, but AI-CST was slightly inferior to AB-CST. Student satisfaction was significantly greater for AB-CST. Costs of AI-CST were substantially lower than AB-CST. AI-CST may provide a cost-effective opportunity to build training capacity for health care professionals.
More Related Videos
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
05:04Author Spotlight: Evaluating Clinicians' Adoption of Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Cannulation Through Simulation Training
Published on: August 9, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients
Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.