VR/AR and metaverse-based approaches were more frequently associated with favorable findings than screen-based virtual patient approaches, which yielded mixed findings with no clear advantage over non-technology-based simulation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across the included reviews, VR/AR- and metaverse-based approaches were more frequently associated with favorable findings than screen-based VP approaches; screen-based VP interventions yielded mixed findings and no clear advantage over non-technology-based simulation methods. → Kalmring M 2026

Evidence¶

Kalmring M 2026¶

Kalmring M, Chmelar S, Greimel P, Kaider M, Lang C, Roszipal B. (2026). Teaching clinical communication skills through virtual patient-based learning: an umbrella review of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09374-6

q2 · i? · review · r3

Narrative synthesis of the nine included reviews in the Strength of evidence section. The review reports the favorability contrast between VR/AR- and metaverse-based approaches and screen-based VP approaches, hedged by the reviews' critically low quality.

"Across reviews, VR/AR- and metaverse-based approaches were more frequently associated with favorable findings than screen-based VP approaches, whereas screen-based VP interventions yielded mixed findings and no clear advantage over non-technology-based simulation methods."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Virtual environments favor clinical reasoning, self-regulation and peer collaboration, while physical environments engage critical reasoning, professionalism and communication abilities — related
• Reported barriers to immersive and VP-based communication training include limited authenticity of non-verbal interaction, unrealistic student perceptions, high institutional resource requirements, technical challenges, and scalability constraints — related
• Virtual patient simulations show mixed effects: improved diagnostic accuracy in one trial, no advantage over video teaching in another, and short-lived knowledge gains — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Immersion principle: people do not necessarily learn better in 3D immersive virtual reality than with a corresponding 2D desktop presentation (d = -0.10 across 9 tests) — related
• Hybrid sequences combining VR with conventional practice yielded the most favorable outcomes in one trial — a narrower finding that bears on this claim