Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40676632›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2025

Effects of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) patient simulation on perceived clinical competency among global nursing undergraduates: a cross-over randomised controlled trial.

Tai Chun John Fung, Siu Ling Chan, Choi Fung Mabel Lam, Chung Yan Lam, Christopher Chi Wai Cheng, Man Hin Lai, Cheuk Chun Joseph Ho, Siu Lun Au, Lok Yi Mak, Sophia Hu and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Tai Chun John FungSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR. bigjohn@hku.hk.
Siu Ling ChanSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
Choi Fung Mabel LamSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
Chung Yan LamSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
Christopher Chi Wai ChengThe Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
Man Hin LaiSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
Cheuk Chun Joseph HoSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
Siu Lun AuSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
Lok Yi MakHong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
Sophia HuNational Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Supapak PhetrasuwanFaculty of Nursing, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Jumpee GrangerRamathibodi School of Nursing, Bangkok, Thailand.
Jung Min YoonEwha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Gulzar MalikSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Clara Cabrera MorenoUniversity of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Man Hei Patrick KwokSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
Chia-Chin LinSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR. cclin@hku.hk.

Funding

the HKU Teaching Development Grant 966
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study compared scenario-based generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) patient simulation with immersive 360° virtual reality (VR) simulation in terms of perceived clinical competence, cultural awareness, AI readiness, and simulation effectiveness among nursing students.

methodsThis cross-over randomised controlled study design was conducted from June 2024 to August 2024. Forty-four undergraduate nursing students from years 1-3 were randomised to receive either GenAI patient simulation (Group B) or 360° VR simulation (Group A) with a one-week washout period. Five self-reported questionnaires were used to measure clinical competency: the Clinical Competence Questionnaire (CCQ), Cultural Awareness Scale (CAS), Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale for Medical Students (MAIRS-MS), Simulation Effectiveness Tool - Modified Questionnaire (SET-M), and a demographic questionnaire.

resultsBoth interventions significantly improved clinical competence, cultural awareness, and AI readiness. When administered first, GenAI patient simulation demonstrated greater initial effects on clinical competence and AI readiness compared to the 360° VR simulation, though both groups achieved similar improvements by study completion. At T1, Group B (receiving GenAI) demonstrated significantly larger improvements in CCQ total score [47.68 (95% CI: 36.68, 58.68), p < 0.001] compared to Group A (receiving 360° VR) [24.95 (95% CI: 13.96, 35.95), p < 0.001], with significant between-group difference [16.59 (95% CI: 2.77, 30.41), p = 0.020]. At T2 (post-crossover), both groups maintained significant improvements. For MAIRS-MS (measured at baseline and following each group's GenAI exposure), Group B showed improvement from baseline to T1 [30.18 (95% CI: 23.35, 37.01), p < 0.001] while Group A showed improvement from baseline to T2 [16.64 (95% CI: 9.80, 23.47), p < 0.001], with significant between-group difference [12.09 (95% CI: 4.43, 19.75), p = 0.003]. Both groups experienced changes in CAS scores, though between-group differences were not statistically significant. For SET-M, most participants (75%) felt debriefing contributed to their learning, and 68.2% reported increased confidence in nursing assessment skills.

conclusionsThe findings provide preliminary evidence of its effectiveness in enhancing perceived clinical outcomes among nursing students. Both 360° VR simulation and GenAI patient simulation may serve as effective teaching tools; however, GenAI patient simulation appeared to demonstrate a greater initial effect on clinical competence and AI readiness, although both interventions proved effective across all measured domains. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION/NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

360-degree virtual realityClinical competenceClinical reasoningGenerative artificial intelligenceMedical languageNursing educationPatient simulationRandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID40676632
PMCPMC12272990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.