Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 25, 2026
Project-Based Learning Guidelines for Health Sciences Students: An Analysis with Data Mining and Qualitative Techniques
Published on: December 9, 2022
Knowledge Acquisition, Case Discussion, and Engagement in Health Professional Students Using Interactive Virtual
Jeffrey J Borckardt1,2,3, Debra Henninger-Borckardt1,2, Kelly Barth1
1Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 67 President Street, Charleston, SC, 29425, United States, 1 843-792-5807, 1 843-792-5702.
Background:
Effective pain and opioid management education remains a persistent challenge in health professions training. Static case studies and lecture-based instruction are widely used but may be insufficient to develop the clinical reasoning and communication skills required in practice. Interactive virtual patient simulations, including those powered by large language models, offer scalable alternatives, but head-to-head comparisons of interactive and static case formats using identical content among interprofessional learner populations remain limited.
Objective:
This randomized controlled trial examined whether learner knowledge, quiz performance, and engagement differed when educational case studies were delivered through an interactive, AI-enabled virtual patient format versus a static written format. Because the formats differ in interactivity as well as in their use of AI, the trial was designed to test the effect of an "interactive virtual patient format" rather than to isolate any AI-specific effect.
Methods:
Health professional students from medicine, nursing, dentistry, pharmacy, and allied health programs at a US academic health sciences university viewed a 12-minute video on pain management and were then randomized 1:1 to complete either 3 static written case studies or 3 interactive virtual patient case studies using the Figment Learning Labs Virtual Clinic. Case content was identical across conditions; only the delivery format was manipulated. The virtual patient system used an AI-enabled conversational interface (GPT-4o) delivering facilitator-authored case material, including a viewable medical record. Knowledge was assessed preintervention and postintervention using an 8-item test. Case discussion quiz accuracy and learner engagement (17 items) were also measured. Of 74 enrolled participants, 58 (78%) completed all study components and were included in this completer-based analysis. Analyses included a 2×2 mixed ANOVA and 2-tailed independent-sample t tests (α=.05).
Results:
A significant time (pre-post)×group (interactive vs written) interaction was observed (F1,56=4.39; P=.04; partial η²=0.07), indicating greater knowledge gains in the interactive condition. Participants in the virtual patient group demonstrated higher case discussion quiz accuracy (mean 0.79, SD 0.15) than those in the written case group (mean 0.64, SD 0.11; t56=4.48; P<.001). Agreement scores were significantly higher in the interactive group on 13 of 17 engagement items (P<.05), including items addressing realism, enjoyment, and perceived clinical relevance; because these were uncorrected item-level comparisons, they should be read as supportive rather than definitive.
Conclusions:
In this preliminary trial, exposure to interactive virtual patient cases was associated with higher engagement and higher short-term knowledge scores than static written cases. The design cannot isolate the independent contribution of AI, conversational interactivity, or time-on-task; the findings therefore support the value of an interactive virtual patient "format" rather than a distinct AI-specific advantage. Because the analysis was completer-based, featured unexplained attrition, and involved 2 authors who are founders of the company commercializing the platform, independent replication in larger, multi-institutional, and longitudinal samples is needed.
