Informed Consent ProcessNCT07069504
Comparing AI Role-Play and Peer Role-Play for Informed Consent Training in Endoscopy: A Randomized Control Trial
A study testing AI-based role play and Peer role play in people with Informed Consent Process, run by The Hospital for Sick Children at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The goal of this randomized controlled trial is to find out whether AI-based role play is effective in teaching healthcare trainees how to obtain informed consent from patients for endoscopic procedures. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Informed Consent Process
- What is being tested?
- AI-based role play and Peer role play
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 2 Jul 2025to 31 Dec 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 1) physician trainee enrolled at the University of Toronto.
Who cannot join
- 1) have previously obtained informed consent for an endoscopic procedure 25 or more times in either real clinical or simulated settings.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Canada1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Scarborough Health Network, University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, M5G 0A4
Samir Grover, MD, MEd, FRCPC, 416284-8131, sgrover@shn.ca
About this study
Official title: COMPARING AI ROLE-PLAY AND PEER ROLE-PLAY FOR INFORMED CONSENT TRAINING IN ENDOSCOPY: A RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL
The goal of this randomized controlled trial is to find out whether AI-based role play is effective in teaching healthcare trainees how to obtain informed consent from patients for endoscopic procedures.
The main question is:
Read more
- How does generative AI-based role play compare to traditional peer role play in training healthcare trainees to deliver informed consent for endoscopic procedures?
Researchers will compare AI-based role play with peer role play to see which method is more effective for teaching this skill.
What participants will do:
- Attend a lecture on how to obtain informed consent.
- Take part in simulation-based training using either peer role play or AI-based role play.
- Participate in a simulated clinical encounter to assess their ability to obtain informed consent.
Read the detailed description
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE Generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), has recently enabled the development of interactive, customizable virtual patient simulations that support experiential learning in healthcare communication. These AI-driven platforms can simulate realistic patient encounters, incorporating variable demographics, emotional states, and clinical complexity. They also offer scalable access to individualized feedback and repeated practice, circumventing the logistical limitations of traditional peer or actor-based simulations. Preliminary studies suggest that trainees perceive these tools as high in realism and educational value; however, there remains a lack of empirical evidence directly comparing the educational efficacy of generative AI-based simulations to established pedagogical approaches. This is particularly relevant for teaching complex communication tasks such as obtaining informed consent for gastrointestinal endoscopy-an interaction that demands clarity, empathy, and a detailed explanation of procedural risks, benefits, and alternatives.
STUDY AIM The primary objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of generative AI-based role play and traditional peer role play in training healthcare trainees to obtain informed consent for endoscopic procedures. Specifically, the study will assess differences in trainee's ability to obtain informed, communication skills in obtaining informed consent and self-reported confidence (self-efficacy) following simulation-based training using a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design.
METHODS Study Design This is a single-blinded, parallel-group randomized control trial. A total of 40 medical trainees will be recruited. Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention group (generative AI-based role-play) or the control group (traditional peer role-play). Randomization will be conducted using a computer-generated sequence, with group assignments placed in sealed envelopes distributed by an independent study team member. Due to the nature of the interventions, participant blinding is not feasible; however, outcome assessors will be blinded to group allocation.
Participants Participants will include medical trainees enrolled in a University of Toronto medical training program. Exclusion criteria include prior experience obtaining informed consent for endoscopy 25 or more times in either clinical or simulated settings.
Baseline Assessment All participants will complete a baseline questionnaire collecting demographic data, self-efficacy in obtaining informed consent, and attitudes toward AI in healthcare education.
Educational Intervention Participants will first attend a standardized 20-minute didactic lecture on the principles and components of informed consent in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The session will cover essential topics such as the purpose and risks of upper and lower endoscopy, alternative diagnostic options, addressing patient concerns, and ethical-legal considerations. This lecture is designed to ensure a uniform knowledge base prior to the simulation-based practice sessions.
Simulation-Based Training
Participants will then engage in 30 minutes of simulation-based practice using their assigned modality:
- Control Group - Peer Role Play: Participants will be paired with fellow trainees and alternate between physician and patient roles. Using standardized case prompts, trainees will conduct informed consent discussions. After each interaction, the participant in the patient role will provide peer feedback based on a provided checklist.
- Intervention Group - Generative AI Role Play: Participants will interact individually with an AI-driven virtual patient interface. The simulation will guide a dynamic informed consent conversation in which the AI patient responds in real-time to trainee input. The platform is programmed to emulate realistic patient personas and provides automated, individualized feedback after each scenario, focusing on content completeness, tone, empathy, and clarity.
The role-play scenarios used in both groups will be matched for content, including clinical context (i.e., informed consent for combined upper endoscopy and colonoscopy), relevant patient history, and the same required communication tasks. This design aims to ensure that differences in outcomes can be attributed to the mode of delivery rather than differences in case complexity.
Post-Intervention Assessment After the simulation sessions, all participants will complete a standardized post-test involving a simulated patient encounter. In this assessment, trainees must obtain informed consent for combined upper endoscopy and colonoscopy from a standardized patient (SP, i.e., actor) following a consistent, scripted patient persona. The SP will be trained to provide consistent responses across participants.
All interactions will be video recorded for assessment purposes, ensuring that identifying facial features are not captured to maintain anonymity. Assessors will be blinded to group allocation.
Follow-Up Survey Immediately following the post-test, participants will complete a follow-up survey reassessing self-efficacy in obtaining informed consent. The intervention group will also complete a feedback questionnaire assessing the usability, perceived educational value, and acceptability of the AI-based platform.
OUTCOMES
- Primary Outcomes:
- Ability to obtain informed consent during the SP post-test, assessed using a structured checklist (assessors blinded to group allocation)
- Communication performance during the SP post-test, assessed using a structured global rating scale (assessors blinded to group allocation)
- Secondary Outcomes:
- Change in self-efficacy in obtaining informed consent (pre- vs. post-intervention survey scores).
- Other Outcomes (intervention group only); o Trainee perceptions of the AI-based simulation (intervention group only), including realism, usability, and satisfaction.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Quantitative data will be analyzed using standard statistical methods. Between-group differences in informed consent performance scores and communication scores will be assessed using independent samples t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests, depending on the distribution of the data. A mixed-design (repeated measures) ANOVA will be used to evaluate pre-post changes in self-efficacy and to test for interaction effects between time and group (AI vs. peer role-play). Qualitative data from open-ended survey responses will be analyzed using thematic analysis following an inductive coding approach.
- Conditions
- Informed Consent Process
- Being tested
- AI-based role play, Peer role play
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, virtual patient, simulation-based training, simulation training, education, informed consent, role play
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
AI-based role playOther
Participants will role play informed consent scenarios with a generative AI-driven patient simulation designed to mimic a realistic consent discussion for an endoscopic procedure.
Peer role playOther
Participants will role play informed consent discussions with a peer (i.e., another participant randomized to this group)
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| AI Role Play | Experimental | Participants will interact with a generative AI-driven patient simulation designed to mimic a realistic consent discussion for an endoscopic procedure. The AI will respond dynamically to trainee input, prompting key elements of the consent process. After each case, the generative AI platform will provide the trainee with individualized feedback. Training will last 30 minutes. The same patient cases will be used in both groups. Receives: Other: AI-based role play |
| Peer Role Play | Active comparator | Participants will be paired with another trainee (i.e., peer) in this group to conduct role play exercises, alternating between the roles of physician and patient, using standardized prompts and guidelines. After each case, the trainee portraying the patient will be asked to provide feedback to the individual portraying the participant. Training will last 30 minutes. The same patient cases will be used in both groups. Receives: Other: Peer role play |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Informed consent checklist
20-item checklist outlining 19 key steps of the informed consent process, rated on a 3-point scale (yes (2), partial (2), no (0)) and a 10-point global rating scale. The maximum total possible score is 28 on the checklist and 10 on the global rating scale (38 overall), with higher scores representing better performance. Trainee performance during the SP post-test, conducted immediately after training (Day 1), will be evaluated using this scale.
Measured: Day 1 (immediately post-training)
Communication Skills
Communication Skills Global Rating Form published by Hodges B, McIlroy JH. Analytic global OSCE ratings are sensitive to level of training. Med Educ 2003; 37: 1012-6. The scale rates overall communication, empathy, coherence, verbal and non-verbal communcation on a 1-5 point scale. The maximum score is 25, with higher scores representing better performance. Trainee performance during the SP post-test, conducted immediately after training (Day 1), will be evaluated using this scale.
Measured: Day 1 (immediately post-training)
Secondary outcomes (1)
Self-efficacy
Change in self-efficacy to perform informed consent will be meausured using a self-efficacy scale developed based on Bandura's framework. The self-efficacy scale contains 9 items, rated on a 0-100 scale (0 = Cannot do at all; 50 = Moderatly certain I can do; 100 = Highly certain I can do), with a total possible score of 900. High scores indicate higher self-efficacy. Trainee will rate their self-efficacy to perform informed consent at baseline and on Day 1 (after the SP post-test).
Measured: Baseline and Day 1
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Jul 2025
- Study start2 Jul 2025
- Primary completion1 Sep 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Dec 2026 (estimated)
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 Informed Consent ProcessStudies 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
- 40 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The Hospital for Sick Children
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Toronto, Scarborough General Hospital
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Catharine Walsh, The Hospital for Sick Children
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07069504
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- GAS-25-013
- Status last verified
- Jul 2025
- First submitted
- 30 Jun 2025
- Last updated
- 16 Jul 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Hodges B, McIlroy JH. Analytic global OSCE ratings are sensitive to level of training. Med Educ. 2003 Nov;37(11):1012-6. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01674.x.
PubMed 14629415
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Jul 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- COMPARING AI ROLE-PLAY AND PEER ROLE-PLAY FOR INFORMED CONSENT TRAINING IN ENDOSCOPY: A RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07069504
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- GAS-25-013
- Conditions
- Informed Consent Process
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, virtual patient, simulation-based training, simulation training, education, informed consent, role play
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- The Hospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Toronto, Scarborough General Hospital
- Study start
- 2 Jul 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Sep 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 16 Jul 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 randomized controlled trial is to find out whether AI-based role play is effective in teaching healthcare trainees how to obtain informed consent from patients for endoscopic procedures.
The main question is:
- How does generative AI-based role play compare to traditional peer role play in training healthcare trainees to deliver informed consent for endoscopic procedures?
Researchers will compare AI-based role play with peer role play to see which method is more effective for teaching this skill.
What participants will do:
- Attend a lecture on how to obtain informed consent.
- Take part in simulation-based training using either peer role play or AI-based role play.
- Participate in a simulated clinical encounter to assess their ability to obtain informed consent.
Detailed description
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE Generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), has recently enabled the development of interactive, customizable virtual patient simulations that support experiential learning in healthcare communication. These AI-driven platforms can simulate realistic patient encounters, incorporating variable demographics, emotional states, and clinical complexity. They also offer scalable access to individualized feedback and repeated practice, circumventing the logistical limitations of traditional peer or actor-based simulations. Preliminary studies suggest that trainees perceive these tools as high in realism and educational value; however, there remains a lack of empirical evidence directly comparing the educational efficacy of generative AI-based simulations to established pedagogical approaches. This is particularly relevant for teaching complex communication tasks such as obtaining informed consent for gastrointestinal endoscopy-an interaction that demands clarity, empathy, and a detailed explanation of procedural risks, benefits, and alternatives.
STUDY AIM The primary objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of generative AI-based role play and traditional peer role play in training healthcare trainees to obtain informed consent for endoscopic procedures. Specifically, the study will assess differences in trainee's ability to obtain informed, communication skills in obtaining informed consent and self-reported confidence (self-efficacy) following simulation-based training using a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design.
METHODS Study Design This is a single-blinded, parallel-group randomized control trial. A total of 40 medical trainees will be recruited. Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention group (generative AI-based role-play) or the control group (traditional peer role-play). Randomization will be conducted using a computer-generated sequence, with group assignments placed in sealed envelopes distributed by an independent study team member. Due to the nature of the interventions, participant blinding is not feasible; however, outcome assessors will be blinded to group allocation.
Participants Participants will include medical trainees enrolled in a University of Toronto medical training program. Exclusion criteria include prior experience obtaining informed consent for endoscopy 25 or more times in either clinical or simulated settings.
Baseline Assessment All participants will complete a baseline questionnaire collecting demographic data, self-efficacy in obtaining informed consent, and attitudes toward AI in healthcare education.
Educational Intervention Participants will first attend a standardized 20-minute didactic lecture on the principles and components of informed consent in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The session will cover essential topics such as the purpose and risks of upper and lower endoscopy, alternative diagnostic options, addressing patient concerns, and ethical-legal considerations. This lecture is designed to ensure a uniform knowledge base prior to the simulation-based practice sessions.
Simulation-Based Training
Participants will then engage in 30 minutes of simulation-based practice using their assigned modality:
- Control Group - Peer Role Play: Participants will be paired with fellow trainees and alternate between physician and patient roles. Using standardized case prompts, trainees will conduct informed consent discussions. After each interaction, the participant in the patient role will provide peer feedback based on a provided checklist.
- Intervention Group - Generative AI Role Play: Participants will interact individually with an AI-driven virtual patient interface. The simulation will guide a dynamic informed consent conversation in which the AI patient responds in real-time to trainee input. The platform is programmed to emulate realistic patient personas and provides automated, individualized feedback after each scenario, focusing on content completeness, tone, empathy, and clarity.
The role-play scenarios used in both groups will be matched for content, including clinical context (i.e., informed consent for combined upper endoscopy and colonoscopy), relevant patient history, and the same required communication tasks. This design aims to ensure that differences in outcomes can be attributed to the mode of delivery rather than differences in case complexity.
Post-Intervention Assessment After the simulation sessions, all participants will complete a standardized post-test involving a simulated patient encounter. In this assessment, trainees must obtain informed consent for combined upper endoscopy and colonoscopy from a standardized patient (SP, i.e., actor) following a consistent, scripted patient persona. The SP will be trained to provide consistent responses across participants.
All interactions will be video recorded for assessment purposes, ensuring that identifying facial features are not captured to maintain anonymity. Assessors will be blinded to group allocation.
Follow-Up Survey Immediately following the post-test, participants will complete a follow-up survey reassessing self-efficacy in obtaining informed consent. The intervention group will also complete a feedback questionnaire assessing the usability, perceived educational value, and acceptability of the AI-based platform.
OUTCOMES
- Primary Outcomes:
- Ability to obtain informed consent during the SP post-test, assessed using a structured checklist (assessors blinded to group allocation)
- Communication performance during the SP post-test, assessed using a structured global rating scale (assessors blinded to group allocation)
- Secondary Outcomes:
- Change in self-efficacy in obtaining informed consent (pre- vs. post-intervention survey scores).
- Other Outcomes (intervention group only); o Trainee perceptions of the AI-based simulation (intervention group only), including realism, usability, and satisfaction.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Quantitative data will be analyzed using standard statistical methods. Between-group differences in informed consent performance scores and communication scores will be assessed using independent samples t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests, depending on the distribution of the data. A mixed-design (repeated measures) ANOVA will be used to evaluate pre-post changes in self-efficacy and to test for interaction effects between time and group (AI vs. peer role-play). Qualitative data from open-ended survey responses will be analyzed using thematic analysis following an inductive coding approach.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| AI Role Play | Experimental | Other: AI-based role playParticipants will interact with a generative AI-driven patient simulation designed to mimic a realistic consent discussion for an endoscopic procedure. The AI will respond dynamically to trainee input, prompting key elements of the consent process. After each case, the generative AI platform will provide the trainee with individualized feedback. Training will last 30 minutes. The same patient cases will be used in both groups. |
| Peer Role Play | Active comparator | Other: Peer role playParticipants will be paired with another trainee (i.e., peer) in this group to conduct role play exercises, alternating between the roles of physician and patient, using standardized prompts and guidelines. After each case, the trainee portraying the patient will be asked to provide feedback to the individual portraying the participant. Training will last 30 minutes. The same patient cases will be used in both groups. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- 1) physician trainee enrolled at the University of Toronto.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- 1) have previously obtained informed consent for an endoscopic procedure 25 or more times in either real clinical or simulated settings.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| AI-based role playParticipants will role play informed consent scenarios with a generative AI-driven patient simulation designed to mimic a realistic consent discussion for an endoscopic procedure. | Other | AI Role Play |
| Peer role playParticipants will role play informed consent discussions with a peer (i.e., another participant randomized to this group) | Other | Peer Role Play |
Primary outcome
Informed consent checklist
Time frame: Day 1 (immediately post-training)
20-item checklist outlining 19 key steps of the informed consent process, rated on a 3-point scale (yes (2), partial (2), no (0)) and a 10-point global rating scale. The maximum total possible score is 28 on the checklist and 10 on the global rating scale (38 overall), with higher scores representing better performance. Trainee performance during the SP post-test, conducted immediately after training (Day 1), will be evaluated using this scale.
Communication Skills
Time frame: Day 1 (immediately post-training)
Communication Skills Global Rating Form published by Hodges B, McIlroy JH. Analytic global OSCE ratings are sensitive to level of training. Med Educ 2003; 37: 1012-6. The scale rates overall communication, empathy, coherence, verbal and non-verbal communcation on a 1-5 point scale. The maximum score is 25, with higher scores representing better performance. Trainee performance during the SP post-test, conducted immediately after training (Day 1), will be evaluated using this scale.
1 secondary outcome
Self-efficacy
Time frame: Baseline and Day 1
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 16 Jul 2025.
- Results publication: PubMed 14629415Hodges B, McIlroy JH. Analytic global OSCE ratings are sensitive to level of training. Med Educ. 2003 Nov;37(11):1012-6. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01674.x.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Informed Consent Process
Recruiting
Chatbot Implementation In The Clinical Informed Consent Process
Informed Consent
Active, not recruiting
A Multimedia Presentation to Augment the Informed Consent Process for Anesthesia for Patients Undergoing Scheduled Caesarian Delivery
Pregnancy, Caesarean Section
Recruiting
Implementing a Novel Consent Process for Biospecimen Research After Newborn Screening
Implementation Science, Informed Consent
Active, not recruiting
Strengthening Informed Consent for Authentic Participation in Perinatal HIV Research
Consent Form
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Envafolimab Combined With Axitinib as First-Line Treatment for Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (aRCC)
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.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing AI-based role play and Peer role play in people with Informed Consent Process, run by The Hospital for Sick Children at 1 site in Canada.
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 1 inclusion and 1 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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Jul 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 Canada. 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Each site lists its own contact: choose the nearest one under Trial locations. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Informed consent checklist (time frame: Day 1 (immediately post-training)). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT07069504, 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 16 Jul 2025.