Virtual Standardized Patients Versus Traditional Academic Training for Improving Clinical Competence Among Traditional Chinese Medicine Students: Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Background: The practical training course of internal medicine of traditional Chinese medicine (PTC-IMTCM) is primarily based on traditional case teaching, which can be stressful for teachers. The use of virtual standardized patient (VSP) applications could be an alternative; however, there is limited evidence regarding their feasibility and effectiveness.

Objective: This study aimed to build a VSP-TCM application according to the characteristics of PTC-IMTCM and the needs of students and to compare its efficacy with that of traditional teaching in improving TCM clinical competence among students.

Methods: A prequestionnaire investigation was conducted before the course, and a VSP-TCM system was developed based on the results of the questionnaire. A randomized controlled trial was then conducted between February 26, 2020, and August 20, 2021. A total of 84 medical students were included and were divided into 2 groups: an observation group, trained with VSP-TCM (n=42, 50%), and a control group, trained with traditional academic training (n=42, 50%). Formative and summative assessments were conducted to evaluate teaching effectiveness. After completing the course, the students were administered a questionnaire to self-assess their satisfaction with the course. A questionnaire was also administered to 15 teachers to uncover their perspectives on VSP-TCM.

Results: All participants completed the study. In the formative assessment, the VSP-TCM group performed better in medical interviewing ability (mean 7.19, SD 0.63, vs mean 6.83, SD 0.81; P=.04), clinical judgment (mean 6.48, SD 0.98, vs mean 5.86, SD 1.04; P=.006), and comprehensive ability (mean 6.71, SD 0.59, vs mean 6.40, SD 0.58; P=.02) than the control group. Similarly, in the summative evaluation, the VSP-TCM group performed better in the online systematic knowledge test (OSKT; mean 86.62, SD 2.71, vs mean 85.38, SD 2.62; P=.046), application of TCM technology (mean 87.86, SD 3.04, vs mean 86.19, SD 3.08; P=.02), TCM syndrome differentiation and therapeutic regimen (mean 90.93, SD 2.42, vs mean 89.60, SD 2.86; P=.03), and communication skills (mean 90.67, SD 4.52, vs mean 88.24, SD 4.56; P=.02) than the control group. There was no significant difference in medical writing between both groups (mean 75.07, SD 3.61, vs mean 75.71, SD 2.86; P=.37). The postcourse feedback questionnaire indicated that VSP-TCM can better enhance students' TCM thinking ability (n=39, 93%, vs n=37, 88%; P=.002), medical history collection (n=38, 90%, vs n=30, 72; P=.001), syndrome differentiation and treatment and critical thinking (n=38, 90%, vs n=37, 88%; P=.046), comprehensive clinical application ability (n=40, 95%, vs n=36, 86%; P=.009), interpersonal communication skills (n=36, 86%, vs n=28, 67%; P=.01), and autonomous learning ability (n=37, 88%, vs n=28, 67%; P=.01) than traditional academic training. Similarly, the teachers held a positive perspective on VSP-TCM.

Conclusions: VSP-TCM enhances students' TCM clinical competence and dialectical thinking and improves their ability to work autonomously. Moreover, the VSP-TCM system is feasible, practical, and cost-effective and thus merits further promotion in TCM education.

Keywords: clinical competence; medical education; traditional Chinese medicine; virtual standardized patients.

Figure 1

Flow diagram of the study. PTC-IMTCM: practical training course of internal medicine of traditional Chinese medicine; VSP-TCM: virtual standardized patient of traditional Chinese medicine; TCM: traditional Chinese medicine; Mini-CEX: mini-clinical evaluation exercise.

Figure 2

Operation procedures of the VSP-TCM system.

Figure 3

Results of formative evaluation. NS: not significant; VSP-TCM: virtual standardized patient of traditional Chinese medicine. *P<.05, **P<.01. A: Score of medical interview; B: Score of physical examination; C: Score of clinical judgment; D: Score of disease treatment; E: Score of comprehensive ability.

Figure 4

Scores of summative assessment (*P<.05). OSKT: online systematic knowledge test (A); SATT: scores for the application of traditional Chinese medicine technology (B); SWMR: scores for written medical records (C); SSDTR: scores for TCM syndrome differentiation and therapeutic regimen (D); RTAS: Real-Time Assessment Scores (E); OSP: occupational standardized patient (E); VSP-TCM: virtual standardized patient of traditional Chinese medicine.