Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42008615›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2026

Use of Digital Technology for Developing Communication Skills in Undergraduate and Postgraduate Medical Education: Scoping Review.

Princella Seripenah, Heidi Emery, Bakula Patel, Edward Tyrrell, Julie Carson, Jo Leonardi-Bee, Catrin Evans, Emma Wilson, Jaspal Taggar

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. 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

9 authors.

Princella SeripenahPrimary Care Education Unit, Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Room C37, C Floor, The Medical School, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, United Kingdom, +44 115 82 30445.ORCID 0000-0001-5565-1255
Heidi EmeryPrimary Care Education Unit, Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Room C37, C Floor, The Medical School, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, United Kingdom, +44 115 82 30445.ORCID 0009-0005-9504-9492
Bakula PatelEducation Centre, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0000-3140-7792
Edward TyrrellPrimary Care Education Unit, Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Room C37, C Floor, The Medical School, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, United Kingdom, +44 115 82 30445.ORCID 0000-0003-2171-6334
Julie CarsonPrimary Care Education Unit, Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Room C37, C Floor, The Medical School, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, United Kingdom, +44 115 82 30445.ORCID 0009-0009-9962-8482
Jo Leonardi-BeeCentre for Public Health and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0893-6068
Catrin EvansCentre for Evidence Based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5338-2191
Emma WilsonCentre for Public Health and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4695-2184
Jaspal TaggarPrimary Care Education Unit, Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Room C37, C Floor, The Medical School, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, United Kingdom, +44 115 82 30445.ORCID 0000-0002-5031-0977

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Effective doctor-patient communication is fundamental to safe, high-quality health care and is a core competency across undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. Communication skills training (CST) has traditionally relied on workforce-intensive methods such as role-play and standardized patient encounters, which face increasing pressure from rising student numbers, constrained faculty capacity, and growing clinical workloads. Digital technologies offer scalable, flexible alternatives, yet the extent, educational design, and strength of evidence supporting digital CST remain unclear. Objective: This study aimed to comprehensively map the digital technologies used for CST in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, examine the reported outcomes in the context of educational theory, and identify gaps relevant for future research and clinical practice. Methods: This scoping review followed Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and is reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC) were searched from inception to January 5, 2026. Eligible studies examined any digital technology used to support active, 2-way CST for undergraduate or postgraduate medical learners. Passive learning approaches were excluded. Data were synthesized descriptively. To support structured interpretation of heterogeneous outcomes, interventions were mapped to Kolb's experiential learning cycle to examine learning processes and to Kirkpatrick's evaluation model to assess depth of educational and translational impact. Results: A total of 11,179 records were identified, of which 121 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were published within the past decade (92/121, 76%) and were conducted in North America and Europe (93/121, 76.9%), with 58.7% (71/121) of studies focusing on undergraduate learners. Recording-based tools (51/121, 41.8%), live stream platforms (33/121, 27%), and virtual patient simulators (32/121, 26.2%) were the most used digital technologies. General communication and history taking was the most frequent topic taught. Only 28.1% (34/121) of studies used validated objective outcome measures. Educationally, digital interventions overwhelmingly supported early stages of experiential learning (120/121, 99.2%), with almost no progression to abstract conceptualization or active experimentation. Outcome evaluation was similarly limited in depth; most studies assessed outcomes at Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and 2. Few studies evaluated behavior change in clinical practice (6/121, 5%) or patient-level outcomes (1/121, 0.8%). A small but growing subset of studies incorporated artificial intelligence, primarily within virtual patient simulators, showing promising but methodologically limited evidence. Conclusions: Although digital CST interventions show promise for supporting early-stage learning outcomes, the evidence is constrained by weak study designs, inconsistent use of validated measures, and minimal real-world evaluation. Current technologies support only initial phases of experiential learning, with no evidence of progression to competency development or translation into improved patient care. For educators investing in digital CST, these technologies should be integrated thoughtfully within broader curricula rather than treated as standalone solutions, accompanied by evaluation extending to clinical outcomes. Future research that prioritizes robust comparative designs evaluating whether digital training meaningfully improves clinical communication and patient care is warranted.

Indexed as

CommunicationDigital TechnologyEducation, Medical, GraduateEducation, Medical, UndergraduateClinical CompetenceDigital HealthHumanscommunication skillsdigital technologydoctor–patient communicationeducational technologymedical educationpostgraduate trainingscoping review.undergraduate trainingvideo-based learningvirtual simulation

Identifiers

PMID42008615
PMCPMC13094807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.