| Literature DB >> 35770149 |
Michael Co1, Tsz Hon John Yuen2, Ho Hung Cheung1.
Abstract
Introduction: A novel chatbot mobile app for training of undergraduate medical students' clinical history taking skills was developed in 2021. Students were able to take clinical history from the virtual patient for bedside teaching. A case-control study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of learning with chatbot mobile app, versus conventional bedside teachings with real patients.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical education; Computers; New technology; Simulation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35770149 PMCID: PMC9234591 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09751
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Two separate screen captures of conversation between medical student and Chatbot Bennie, illustrating the student-chatbot interaction (Right) and chatbot's response to synonym (Left).
Baseline demographic data of each group of students.
| Conventional bedside | Chatbot | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Median age (Range) | 22 (21–30) | 23 (21–26) | 0.31 |
| Male gender | 32 (50%) | 38 (55.9%) | 0.50 |
| Post-graduate | 5 (7.8%) | 6 (8.8%) | 0.83 |
| Distinction (Merit) in previous exams | 4 (6.3%) | 4 (5.9%) | 0.93 |
| Failure in previous exams | 5 (7.8%) | 5 (7.4%) | 0.92 |
Number of students who were unable to take the correct history in each group.
| Conventional bedside (N = 64) | Chatbot (N = 68) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Chief complaint | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.00 |
| Duration of symptoms | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.00 |
| History of present illness | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.00 |
| Associated symptoms | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.00 |
| Past medical history | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.00 |
| Past surgical history | 8 (12.5%) | 12 (17.6%) | 0.41 |
| Family history | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.00 |
| Risk factors | 2 (3.1%) | 2 (2.9%) | 0.95 |
| Investigations | 6 (9.4%) | 6 (8.8%) | 0.91 |
| Social history | 2 (3.2%) | 3 (4.7%) | 0.70 |
Students’ evaluation of the Bernie Chatbot System (Likert scale of 1–10).
| Areas of evaluation | Median students rating out of 10 (Range) |
|---|---|
| User friendliness | 8 (6–10) |
| Keyword identification | 7 (5–9) |
| Interaction | 7 (6–9) |
| Efficiency of learning | 8 (6–9) |
| Overall learning experience | 8 (6–9) |