ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Student and Lecturer Perceptions of the Use of an AI to Improve Communication Skills in Healthcare: An Interview Study.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative AI in simulation debriefings: an exploratory study using the Team-FIRST framework and qualitative feedback from simulation experts and learners.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Student and Lecturer Perceptions of the Use of an AI to Improve Communication Skills in Healthcare: An Interview Study.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: Communication is a complex skill and key component for professionals in healthcare. Complex skills are best learned through experiential learning like role-plays or simulated patient encounters. The aim of the present study is to explore how students and lecturers assess the conditions under which the use of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based feedback system can promote the learning process. Methods: An interview study with health profession students and lecturers was conducted using a qualitative descriptive design. Recorded audio data was transcribed and evaluated by structuring qualitative content analysis. The research process was conducted and continually reflected by an interprofessional research team. Ethical approval was obtained. Results: Using qualitative content analysis, 4 major themes were identified. These are "conditions," "communication scenarios," "AI-based learning platform" and "debriefing." Lecturers and students welcome the idea of AI providing output on verbal and para-verbal aspects. To implement AI-based output into a teaching programme AI functionality should be adaptable to the specific situation. Lecturers and students highlighted that AI could be particularly valuable for speech qualities which are often difficult for humans to assess. AI could give freedom to focus on additional aspects of the conversation by documenting desirable speech qualities. Lecturers and students prefer for the AI-based output to be given at the end of rather than within the role-play. Furthermore, they wish for communication scenarios to be analysed repeatedly in order to track progress. Conclusion: Practicing in a safe environment and receiving competent credible feedback, with lecturers trained in facilitation, is a pre-requisite for the entire learning progress. The integration of an AI-based feedback system should be characterised by both flexibility of the AI application and standardisation of the communication scenario.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.