GenAI-Supported Virtual Patients in Health Care Education: Systematic Review.

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is enhancing virtual patient simulations in health care education by enabling dynamic, adaptive interactions, reshaping how clinical skills are taught. A synthesis of the current evidence is needed to guide implementation and future research, given the pace of technological advancement. Objective: This systematic review aims to synthesize empirical research on the design, implementation, and educational impact of GenAI-supported virtual patients in health care education. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across 5 databases (CINAHL, Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science) from their inception to March 19, 2026. Reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews were also screened. Peer-reviewed studies in English that evaluated GenAI-supported virtual patients using quantitative or mixed methods were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed critically using JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) checklists, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results: A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria (total participants N=645), spanning health care disciplines, including nursing, medicine, pharmacy, radiography, and medical first-responder training. The virtual patients varied in design; input modalities included text (9 studies), voice (5 studies), or hybrid (1 study); output was text (9 studies), speech (5 studies), or both (1 study); 6 studies used 3D-embodied avatars, while 9 used nonembodied interfaces. A total of 13 studies used OpenAI GPT models (eg, ChatGPT), 1 used a fine-tuned model from a different provider, and 1 evaluated multiple model families (Claude, GPT, and open-source). Further, 6 studies used controlled experimental designs, including 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs); the remainder were cross-sectional or prepost evaluations. Primary outcomes included user perceptions (14 studies), communication skills (4 studies), clinical reasoning (3 studies), and performance (7 studies). In controlled comparisons, GenAI-supported virtual patients consistently improved outcomes relative to control conditions: for example, enhanced clinical decision-making (RCT, n=21), ophthalmology history-taking skills (RCT, n=26), and medical history-taking performance (crossover RCT, n=20). The evidence base is characterized by brief intervention durations, a predominant reliance on single-session interactions, and a general lack of underpinning educational theory. No meta-analysis was performed due to the limited number of studies and significant heterogeneity in designs, interventions, and outcome measures. Conclusions: The evidence supports the feasibility and acceptability of GenAI-supported virtual patients, with positive learner perceptions and promising outcomes for skills development. However, critical limitations remain in emotional-behavioral complexity, simulation adaptability, and research design rigor (eg, limited use of control groups and validated instruments). The review offers educators, instructional designers, and policymakers actionable insights for integrating dynamic, artificial intelligence-driven simulations while identifying crucial gaps-such as the need for theoretical grounding, longitudinal studies, and standardized design protocols-that must be addressed for safe and effective implementation.