GenAI tutorials took longer than ePBLM tutorials, with approximately 10 additional minutes spent on history-taking¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? GenAI groups spent approximately 10 min longer taking the patient history than ePBLM groups, and only genAI groups concluded by communicating diagnosis and management plans to the patient. → Allison Mool · Jacob Schmid · Thomas Johnston · Kodi J. Smith McCoy · Zachary Patterson · Hannah Feldt · William Thomas · Emma Fenner · Kevin Lu · Raya Gandhi · Adam Western · Brendan Seabold · Daniel Vollmer · Roshan Nallaveettil · Anthony Fanelli · Logan Schmillen · Shelley Tischkau · Anna T. Cianciolo · Pinckney Benedict · Richard Selinfreund 2026

Evidence¶

Allison Mool · Jacob Schmid · Thomas Johnston · Kodi J. Smith McCoy · Zachary Patterson · Hannah Feldt · William Thomas · Emma Fenner · Kevin Lu · Raya Gandhi · Adam Western · Brendan Seabold · Daniel Vollmer · Roshan Nallaveettil · Anthony Fanelli · Logan Schmillen · Shelley Tischkau · Anna T. Cianciolo · Pinckney Benedict · Richard Selinfreund 2026¶

Allison Mool · Jacob Schmid · Thomas Johnston · Kodi J. Smith McCoy · Zachary Patterson · Hannah Feldt · William Thomas · Emma Fenner · Kevin Lu · Raya Gandhi · Adam Western · Brendan Seabold · Daniel Vollmer · Roshan Nallaveettil · Anthony Fanelli · Logan Schmillen · Shelley Tischkau · Anna T. Cianciolo · Pinckney Benedict · Richard Selinfreund. (2026). Using Generative AI to Simulate Patient History-Taking in a Problem-Based Learning Tutorial: A Mixed-Methods Study. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-025-09929-4

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive observation of audio recordings from the four tutorial groups (two per condition) found genAI tutorials ran 55–65 min versus 36–39 min for ePBLM, with history-taking at "24–30 min vs. 16–19 min". Only genAI groups spent 10–12 min reporting diagnosis to the patient.

"GenAI groups spent approximately 10 min longer taking the patient history than ePBLM groups (24–30 min vs. 16–19 min for genAI and ePBLM groups, respectively)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The genAI-enabled patient presented pertinent positive findings consistently with the ePBLM but deviated on non-essential content — related
• Students treated the genAI avatar as a sophisticated question base rather than a virtual patient, using predominantly closed-ended, efficiency-focused questioning — related
• Engage-to-Unlock redistributed effort across tasks: participants spent more time writing and less time evaluating, without increasing overall task duration — related
• GenAI students collaboratively phrased and troubleshooted questions, with collaborative problem-solving varying substantially between the two genAI groups — related
• Controlled GenAI virtual-patient and communication studies reported short-term skill gains, but positive findings were not universal — related
• Patient history recall was near ceiling in both conditions, with significant decline over two weeks but no difference between genAI and ePBLM conditions — related
• GenAI-condition students rated their PBL tutorial significantly higher after the tutorial than they rated their previous ePBLM-based experiences, especially clinical accuracy — related