ArticleBMC medical education2026
Virtual simulation as a catalyst for equitable and authentic interprofessional learning.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterprofessional education (IPE) is essential for preparing health sciences students for collaborative practice, yet its implementation remains constrained by geographical dispersion, scheduling conflicts, and variability across clinical placements. Advances in virtual simulation technologies including high-fidelity virtual environments and artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled analytics might offer new solutions to address these structural barriers. This study aimed to explore students' experiences of virtual simulation as a strategy to overcome siloed teaching and support the development of interprofessional competencies within health sciences education.
methodsA qualitative, descriptive, exploratory, and contextual design was employed. Between January and June 2024, four online semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams with 29 purposively sampled senior undergraduate students from five health science disciplines. An independent external qualitative researcher facilitated the interviews using a central open-ended question and targeted probes aligned with the study objectives. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the Matrix Building Framework described by Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña. Trustworthiness was ensured through methodological triangulation, peer debriefing, independent coding, and an audit trail consistent with Lincoln and Guba's criteria.
resultsAnalysis yielded two overarching themes with four subthemes. At a system level, virtual simulation ensured accessible and equitable, interprofessional collaboration by reducing geographical and scheduling barriers, standardising learning experiences, and improving administrative efficiency through central scheduling. At a learner level, virtual simulation supported personalised role development, psychological safety, and professional confidence through adaptive scenario design, intentional leadership role allocation, and behaviour-anchored feedback. Participants reported that AI-supported analytics enhanced debriefing quality and enabled focused reflection on communication and teamwork behaviours.
conclusionsVirtual simulation acts as an infrastructure supporting two complementary purposes for IPE, simultaneously addressing systemic access and equity challenges while supporting individual learner development. When aligned with adaptive pedagogy, psychologically safe facilitation, and validated assessment frameworks, virtual simulation for IPE can be equitable, authentic, and scalable. These findings have implications for curriculum design, faculty development, and institutional investment in sustainable virtual simulation platforms.
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.