Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jul 5;24(1):727.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05719-1.

Integrating virtual patients into undergraduate health professions curricula: a framework synthesis of stakeholders' opinions based on a systematic literature review

Joanna Fąferek  1 , Pierre-Louis Cariou  2 , Inga Hege  3 , Anja Mayer  4 , Luc Morin  2 , Daloha Rodriguez-Molina  5 , Bernardo Sousa-Pinto  6 , Andrzej A Kononowicz  7
Affiliations

Integrating virtual patients into undergraduate health professions curricula: a framework synthesis of stakeholders' opinions based on a systematic literature review

Joanna Fąferek et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: Virtual patients (VPs) are widely used in health professions education. When they are well integrated into curricula, they are considered to be more effective than loosely coupled add-ons. However, it is unclear what constitutes their successful integration. The aim of this study was to identify and synthesise the themes found in the literature that stakeholders perceive as important for successful implementation of VPs in curricula.

Methods: We searched five databases from 2000 to September 25, 2023. We included qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods and descriptive case studies that defined, identified, explored, or evaluated a set of factors that, in the perception of students, teachers, course directors and researchers, were crucial for VP implementation. We excluded effectiveness studies that did not consider implementation characteristics, and studies that focused on VP design factors. We included English-language full-text reports and excluded conference abstracts, short opinion papers and editorials. Synthesis of results was performed using the framework synthesis method with Kern's six-step model as the initial framework. We appraised the quality of the studies using the QuADS tool.

Results: Our search yielded a total of 4808 items, from which 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. We identified 14 themes that formed an integration framework. The themes were: goal in the curriculum; phase of the curriculum when to implement VPs; effective use of resources; VP alignment with curricular learning objectives; prioritisation of use; relation to other learning modalities; learning activities around VPs; time allocation; group setting; presence mode; VPs orientation for students and faculty; technical infrastructure; quality assurance, maintenance, and sustainability; assessment of VP learning outcomes and learning analytics. We investigated the occurrence of themes across studies to demonstrate the relevance of the framework. The quality of the studies did not influence the coverage of the themes.

Conclusions: The resulting framework can be used to structure plans and discussions around implementation of VPs in curricula. It has already been used to organise the curriculum implementation guidelines of a European project. We expect it will direct further research to deepen our knowledge on individual integration themes.

Keywords: Curriculum development; Framework synthesis; Systematic review; Virtual patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart of the study selection process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Code matrix of the occurrence of themes in the included empirical studies
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Mapping of the existing integration models to the iCoViP Framework
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ellaway R, Poulton T, Fors U, McGee JB, Albright S. Building a virtual patient commons. Med Teach. 2008;30:170–4. doi: 10.1080/01421590701874074. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cook DA, Erwin PJ, Triola MM. Computerized virtual patients in Health professions Education: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Acad Med. 2010;85:1589–602. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181edfe13. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Consorti F, Mancuso R, Nocioni M, Piccolo A. Efficacy of virtual patients in medical education: a meta-analysis of randomized studies. Comput Educ. 2012;59:1001–8. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.017. - DOI
    1. Kononowicz AA, Woodham LA, Edelbring S, Stathakarou N, Davies D, Saxena N, et al. Virtual Patient Simulations in Health Professions Education: systematic review and Meta-analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21:e14676. doi: 10.2196/14676. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lee J, Kim H, Kim KH, Jung D, Jowsey T, Webster CS. Effective virtual patient simulators for medical communication training: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2020;54:786–95. doi: 10.1111/medu.14152. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources