ArticleBMC medical education2026
Preliminary evaluation of an AI-enhanced simulated interprofessional learning intervention for pharmacy students: a mixed-methods pilot study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterprofessional education (IPE) is vital for preparing pharmacy students for collaborative practice but is often constrained by logistical challenges. This study examined the preliminary impact of an AI-enhanced simulated interprofessional learning intervention on pharmacy students' self-reported interprofessional competencies and perceived readiness for AI use in healthcare, using an antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) scenario to assess the application of clinical decision-making.
methodsA pilot quasi-experimental study with an explanatory mixed-methods design was conducted among pharmacy students (n = 112). The intervention involved an AI-enhanced simulation using virtual avatars representing healthcare roles within a recurrent urinary tract infection case. Outcomes were assessed using the Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Survey (ICCAS), the Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale (MAIRS), and an AMS knowledge questionnaire. Paired t-tests, repeated-measures MANCOVA, and multiple linear regression analyses were performed, and thematic analysis was used for qualitative data.
resultsParticipants reported significantly higher post-intervention self-reported scores across all outcomes. ICCAS scores increased from 58.82 ± 14.67 to 68.52 ± 12.45, MAIRS from 75.16 ± 10.85 to 82.12 ± 9.49, and AMS from 6.21 ± 1.74 to 8.08 ± 1.35 (all p < 0.001), with all subscales showing significantly higher post-values (p < 0.001). MANCOVA confirmed a significant overall time effect (p < 0.001). Qualitative findings highlighted students' perceived improvements in communication, teamwork, clinical reasoning, and critical awareness of AI limitations. Higher academic year, prior IPE exposure, simulation experience, and digital literacy were significantly associated with higher outcome scores. Students without prior IPE exposure showed larger pre-post ICCAS change scores than those with prior IPE exposure (Δ difference = 4.2, p = 0.008, d = 0.52).
conclusionThis pilot study suggests that AI-enhanced simulated interprofessional learning may be associated with improvements in students' self-reported collaborative competencies, perceived readiness for AI use in healthcare, and short-term AMS knowledge scores. Given the single-group pre-post design and short-term assessment, findings should be interpreted as preliminary and require confirmation through future controlled randomized and longitudinal studies.
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.