Fung Tai Chun John, Chan Siu Ling, Lam Choi Fung Mabel, Lam Chung Yan, Cheng Christopher Chi Wai, Lai Man Hin, Ho Cheuk Chun Joseph, Au Siu Lun, Mak Lok Yi, Hu Sophia, Phetrasuwan Supapak, Granger Jumpee, Yoon Jung Min, Malik Gulzar, Moreno Clara Cabrera, Kwok Man Hei Patrick, Lin Chia-Chin
School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
BMC Nurs. 2025 Jul 17;24(1):934. doi: 10.1186/s12912-025-03492-0.
This study compared scenario-based generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) patient simulation with immersive 360° virtual reality (VR) simulation in terms of perceived clinical competence, cultural awareness, AI readiness, and simulation effectiveness among nursing students.
This cross-over randomised controlled study design was conducted from June 2024 to August 2024. Forty-four undergraduate nursing students from years 1-3 were randomised to receive either GenAI patient simulation (Group B) or 360° VR simulation (Group A) with a one-week washout period. Five self-reported questionnaires were used to measure clinical competency: the Clinical Competence Questionnaire (CCQ), Cultural Awareness Scale (CAS), Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale for Medical Students (MAIRS-MS), Simulation Effectiveness Tool - Modified Questionnaire (SET-M), and a demographic questionnaire.
Both interventions significantly improved clinical competence, cultural awareness, and AI readiness. When administered first, GenAI patient simulation demonstrated greater initial effects on clinical competence and AI readiness compared to the 360° VR simulation, though both groups achieved similar improvements by study completion. At T1, Group B (receiving GenAI) demonstrated significantly larger improvements in CCQ total score [47.68 (95% CI: 36.68, 58.68), p < 0.001] compared to Group A (receiving 360° VR) [24.95 (95% CI: 13.96, 35.95), p < 0.001], with significant between-group difference [16.59 (95% CI: 2.77, 30.41), p = 0.020]. At T2 (post-crossover), both groups maintained significant improvements. For MAIRS-MS (measured at baseline and following each group's GenAI exposure), Group B showed improvement from baseline to T1 [30.18 (95% CI: 23.35, 37.01), p < 0.001] while Group A showed improvement from baseline to T2 [16.64 (95% CI: 9.80, 23.47), p < 0.001], with significant between-group difference [12.09 (95% CI: 4.43, 19.75), p = 0.003]. Both groups experienced changes in CAS scores, though between-group differences were not statistically significant. For SET-M, most participants (75%) felt debriefing contributed to their learning, and 68.2% reported increased confidence in nursing assessment skills.
The findings provide preliminary evidence of its effectiveness in enhancing perceived clinical outcomes among nursing students. Both 360° VR simulation and GenAI patient simulation may serve as effective teaching tools; however, GenAI patient simulation appeared to demonstrate a greater initial effect on clinical competence and AI readiness, although both interventions proved effective across all measured domains.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION/NUMBER: Not applicable.
本研究比较了基于情景的生成式人工智能(GenAI)患者模拟与沉浸式360°虚拟现实(VR)模拟在护理专业学生的临床能力感知、文化意识、人工智能准备情况和模拟效果方面的差异。
本交叉随机对照研究设计于2024年6月至2024年8月进行。将44名1-3年级的本科护理专业学生随机分为两组,分别接受GenAI患者模拟(B组)或360°VR模拟(A组),洗脱期为一周。使用五份自我报告问卷来测量临床能力:临床能力问卷(CCQ)、文化意识量表(CAS)、医学生医学人工智能准备量表(MAIRS-MS)、模拟效果工具-修订问卷(SET-M)和一份人口统计学问卷。
两种干预措施均显著提高了临床能力、文化意识和人工智能准备情况。当首先进行GenAI患者模拟时,与360°VR模拟相比,其在临床能力和人工智能准备情况方面表现出更大的初始效果,不过到研究结束时两组的改善情况相似。在T1时,与接受360°VR模拟的A组[24.95(95%CI:13.96,35.95),p<0.001]相比,接受GenAI模拟的B组在CCQ总分上的改善更为显著[47.68(95%CI:36.68,58.68),p<0.001],组间差异显著[16.59(95%CI:2.77,30.41),p=0.020]。在T2(交叉后),两组均保持显著改善。对于MAIRS-MS(在基线和每组接受GenAI模拟后测量),B组从基线到T1有改善[30.18(95%CI:23.35,37.01),p<0.001],而A组从基线到T2有改善[16.64(95%CI:9.80,23.47),p<0.001],组间差异显著[12.09(95%CI:4.43,19.75),p=0.003]。两组的CAS得分均有变化,不过组间差异无统计学意义。对于SET-M,大多数参与者(75%)认为总结对他们的学习有帮助,68.2%的参与者表示对护理评估技能的信心有所增强。
研究结果为其在提高护理专业学生的临床能力感知方面的有效性提供了初步证据。360°VR模拟和GenAI患者模拟均可作为有效的教学工具;然而,GenAI患者模拟在临床能力和人工智能准备情况方面似乎表现出更大的初始效果,尽管两种干预措施在所有测量领域均被证明是有效的。
临床试验注册/编号:不适用。