History-taking TrainingSPAR-HNCT06766383
Simulated Patient and AI-based Roleplay for History-taking
A study testing GPT-simulated patients and traditional role-playing in people with History-taking Training and GPT, run by zhen wang at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate whether AI-based simulated patient training can improve clinical reasoning and history-taking skills in medical students. The main questions it aims to answer is: Does GPT-based simulated patient training improve medical students' history-taking skills compared to… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- History-taking Training, GPT, Medical Education
- What is being tested?
- GPT-simulated patients and traditional role-playing
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 56 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- 7 Oct 2024to 15 Dec 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Students enrolled in a medical or health-related professional program.
- Clinical coursework completion:
- Students who have completed basic clinical coursework, including foundational topics in patient communication and clinical reasoning.
- Age group:
- Participants aged 18-30 years to reflect typical medical student demographics.
- Language proficiency:
Show all 12Show fewer
- Adequate proficiency in the language used for the study (e.g., English) to effectively interact with the AI-simulated patient and understand feedback.
- Willingness and availability:
- Students who provide informed consent and are willing to participate in all required study activities, including training sessions and assessments.
- Access to technology:
- Ability to access and use the necessary technology, such as a computer and internet connection, to complete the simulated patient interactions.
- -
Who cannot join
- Students not enrolled in medical or related health professions programs. Students in early years of study who have not completed basic clinical coursework.
- Technical limitations:
- Inability to access or use the required technology (e.g., computer or online platforms).
- Time constraints:
- Inability to complete all required training and assessments within the study timeline.
- Language barriers:
Show all 12Show fewer
- Insufficient proficiency in the language used for the study (e.g., English) to effectively communicate or understand the simulated patient interactions.
- Health-related factors:
- Conditions that may impair participation, such as significant hearing or vision impairment, or severe psychological conditions.
- Prior participation in similar studies:
- Students who have already participated in studies involving similar AI-based simulated patient training or feedback.
- -
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
China1 site
The Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University
Hefei, Anhui, 230601
About this study
Official title: Feasibility Study of Using GPT for History-taking Training in Medical Education
The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate whether AI-based simulated patient training can improve clinical reasoning and history-taking skills in medical students. The main questions it aims to answer is:
Does GPT-based simulated patient training improve medical students' history-taking skills compared to traditional role-playing methods?
Read more
Participants will:
Participants in the intervention group perform medical history-taking conversations with an AI-simulated patient. Receive AI-generated structured feedback on their performance. The control group participated in role-playing exercises with instructors who acted as patients, receiving feedback after each session. Complete standardized assessments to evaluate clinical reasoning and decision-making skills.
- Conditions
- History-taking Training, GPT, Medical Education
- Being tested
- GPT-simulated patients, traditional role-playing
- Keywords
- History-taking Training, Artificial Intelligence, Medical Education, GPT Simulation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
GPT-simulated patientsBehavioural
GPT-simulated patients
traditional role-playingBehavioural
traditional role-playing
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| intervention group | Experimental | using GPT-simulated patients Receives: Behavioral: GPT-simulated patients |
| control group | Active comparator | using traditional role-playing Receives: Behavioral: traditional role-playing |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
structured clinical examination to measure students' abilities in history taking
Pre and Post Training: This primary endpoint measures improvements in students' clinical skills using a structured clinical examination conducted both before and after the training. The total score is out of 100 points, aggregated from four components:
History Collection (30 points): Assesses the level of detail in the chief complaint and symptoms (10 points), the ability to understand and identify patient information (10 points), and the appropriateness and logic of follow-up questions (10 points).
Clinical Reasoning (30 points): Evaluates the thoroughness of diagnostic thinking (15 points) and efficiency in processing information and forming clinical judgments (15 points).
Communication Skills (20 points): Includes interaction with patients (10 points) and clarity of information delivery (10 points).
Professional Behavior (20 points): Measures adherence to clinical procedural norms (10 points) and professional attitude towards patients (1
Measured: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 4 weeks
Secondary outcomes (2)
Training Feedback Assessment
Training Feedback Assessment Measurement Tool: Structured Questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale.
Components Assessed:
- Post-class self-directed learning.
- Enthusiasm for learning.
- Communication and feedback skills.
- Expressiveness.
- Interview logical reasoning ability.
- Anxiety levels during the interview process. Description: This secondary endpoint collects feedback on the training methods' effectiveness through a structured questionnaire. Each aspect is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 indicates 'strongly disagree' and 5 indicates 'strongly agree'.
Measured: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 4 weeks
Student Satisfaction Survey
Measurement Tool: Satisfaction Questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale.
Components Assessed:
- Diversity of diseases encountered during training.
- Naturalness of patient interaction.
- Usability of the training methods.
- Likelihood of recommending the training to peers. Description: This secondary endpoint evaluates student satisfaction concerning various aspects of the training experience. The questionnaire assesses each factor on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 is 'very dissatisfied' and 5 is 'very satisfied'.
Measured: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 4 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted9 Jan 2025
- Study start7 Oct 2024
- Primary completion15 Dec 2024
- Study completion15 Dec 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for History-taking TrainingStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 56 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- zhen wang
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, zhen wang, The Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06766383
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- GPT for history-taking Trainin
- Other IDs
- 2023jyxm1150
- Acronym
- SPAR-H
- Status last verified
- Oct 2024
- First submitted
- 27 Dec 2024
- Last updated
- 14 Jan 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Wang Z, Fan TT, Li ML, Zhu NJ, Wang XC. Feasibility study of using GPT for history-taking training in medical education: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Med Educ. 2025 Jul 10;25(1):1030. doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07614-9.
PubMed 40640776
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Jan 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Feasibility Study of Using GPT for History-taking Training in Medical Education
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06766383
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SPAR-H / GPT for history-taking Trainin
- Conditions
- History-taking Training, GPT, Medical Education
- Keywords
- History-taking Training, Artificial Intelligence, Medical Education, GPT Simulation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 56 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- zhen wangUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 7 Oct 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 Dec 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 15 Dec 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 9 Jan 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate whether AI-based simulated patient training can improve clinical reasoning and history-taking skills in medical students. The main questions it aims to answer is:
Does GPT-based simulated patient training improve medical students' history-taking skills compared to traditional role-playing methods?
Participants will:
Participants in the intervention group perform medical history-taking conversations with an AI-simulated patient. Receive AI-generated structured feedback on their performance. The control group participated in role-playing exercises with instructors who acted as patients, receiving feedback after each session. Complete standardized assessments to evaluate clinical reasoning and decision-making skills.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| intervention group | Experimental | Behavioral: GPT-simulated patientsusing GPT-simulated patients |
| control group | Active comparator | Behavioral: traditional role-playingusing traditional role-playing |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (12 listed)
- Students enrolled in a medical or health-related professional program.
- Students who have completed basic clinical coursework, including foundational topics in patient communication and clinical reasoning.
- Participants aged 18-30 years to reflect typical medical student demographics.
- Adequate proficiency in the language used for the study (e.g., English) to effectively interact with the AI-simulated patient and understand feedback.
- Students who provide informed consent and are willing to participate in all required study activities, including training sessions and assessments.
Key exclusion criteria (12 listed)
- Students not enrolled in medical or related health professions programs. Students in early years of study who have not completed basic clinical coursework.
- Inability to access or use the required technology (e.g., computer or online platforms).
- Inability to complete all required training and assessments within the study timeline.
- Insufficient proficiency in the language used for the study (e.g., English) to effectively communicate or understand the simulated patient interactions.
- Conditions that may impair participation, such as significant hearing or vision impairment, or severe psychological conditions.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| GPT-simulated patientsGPT-simulated patients | Behavioural | intervention group |
| traditional role-playingtraditional role-playing | Behavioural | control group |
Primary outcome
structured clinical examination to measure students' abilities in history taking
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 4 weeks
Pre and Post Training: This primary endpoint measures improvements in students' clinical skills using a structured clinical examination conducted both before and after the training. The total score is out of 100 points, aggregated from four components: History Collection (30 points): Assesses the level of detail in the chief complaint and symptoms (10 points), the ability to understand and identify patient information (10 points), and the appropriateness and logic of follow-up questions (10 points). Clinical Reasoning (30 points): Evaluates the thoroughness of diagnostic thinking (15 points) and efficiency in processing information and forming clinical judgments (15 points). Communication Skills (20 points): Includes interaction with patients (10 points) and clarity of information delivery (10 points). Professional Behavior (20 points): Measures adherence to clinical procedural norms (10 points) and professional attitude towards patients (1
2 secondary outcomes
Training Feedback Assessment
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 4 weeks
Student Satisfaction Survey
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 4 weeks
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Jan 2025.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 40640776Wang Z, Fan TT, Li ML, Zhu NJ, Wang XC. Feasibility study of using GPT for history-taking training in medical education: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Med Educ. 2025 Jul 10;25(1):1030. doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07614-9.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing GPT-simulated patients and traditional role-playing in people with History-taking Training and GPT, run by zhen wang at 1 site in China.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 12 inclusion and 12 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Jan 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in China. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
structured clinical examination to measure students' abilities in history taking (time frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 4 weeks). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06766383, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Jan 2025.