ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026
Ensuring Knowledge Transfer: The Critical Role of "What-If" Discussions in Virtual Patient Simulation.
Article in Perspectives on 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Virtual Patient (VP) systems are widely used in medical education, yet evidence on how they support near and far transfer remains limited. This study investigates integrating VPs with role modelling, varied case practices, and "what-if" discussions. It aims to measure the students' overall experience with the intervention, improvement in performance scores on near- and far-transfer cases, and to explore how and why the intervention is perceived to enhance transfer. Methods: An exploratory mixed-methods study was conducted with 21 second-year undergraduate medical students enrolled in the course "Personalised Medicine in Cancer Treatment and Care". Students engaged in role modelling performed by an oncologist, worked through authentic cases with varying patient characteristics, and participated in structured "what-if" discussions. Perceptions about the overall experience were gathered through a 19-item survey (n = 21). Performance scores were evaluated using pre- and post-assessments involving VPs and paper-based cases designed to measure near transfer (Case D) and far transfer (Case E) (n = 21). Group interviews (n = 8) provided deeper insights into enhancing transfer. Results: Survey results revealed positive student perceptions of role modelling (M = 4.44), varied case practices (M = 4.35), and "what-if" discussions (M = 3.76). Significant improvements were observed in tumour-stage reasoning for both near and far transfer (p < .001), in initial patient impressions (p = .007) for far transfer, and in the total score (p = .018) for far transfer. Thematic analysis indicated that students benefited from a stepwise build-up in case complexity, recognition of similar reasoning steps across cases, reflective "what-if" discussions that highlighted underlying principles, and peer dialogue around VP feedback that supported concept abstraction. Conclusions: Students evaluated the VP session positively and performance data indicated significant improvements, suggesting that the intervention enhanced near and far transfer. Reflection through "what-if" discussions was perceived to deepen understanding of the underlying principles enabling transfer.
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.