Virtual simulation as a catalyst for equitable and authentic interprofessional learning.
TL;DR
Virtual simulation acts as an infrastructure supporting two complementary purposes for IPE, simultaneously addressing systemic access and equity challenges while supporting individual learner development as well as addressing systemic access and equity challenges while supporting individual learner development.
Abstract
Background
Interprofessional education (IPE) is essential for preparing health sciences students for collaborative practice, yet its implementation remains constrained by geographical dispersion, scheduling conflicts, and variability across clinical placements. Advances in virtual simulation technologies including high-fidelity virtual environments and artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled analytics might offer new solutions to address these structural barriers. This study aimed to explore students' experiences of virtual simulation as a strategy to overcome siloed teaching and support the development of interprofessional competencies within health sciences education.
Methods
A qualitative, descriptive, exploratory, and contextual design was employed. Between January and June 2024, four online semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams with 29 purposively sampled senior undergraduate students from five health science disciplines. An independent external qualitative researcher facilitated the interviews using a central open-ended question and targeted probes aligned with the study objectives. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the Matrix Building Framework described by Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña. Trustworthiness was ensured through methodological triangulation, peer debriefing, independent coding, and an audit trail consistent with Lincoln and Guba's criteria.
Results
Analysis yielded two overarching themes with four subthemes. At a system level, virtual simulation ensured accessible and equitable, interprofessional collaboration by reducing geographical and scheduling barriers, standardising learning experiences, and improving administrative efficiency through central scheduling. At a learner level, virtual simulation supported personalised role development, psychological safety, and professional confidence through adaptive scenario design, intentional leadership role allocation, and behaviour-anchored feedback. Participants reported that AI-supported analytics enhanced debriefing quality and enabled focused reflection on communication and teamwork behaviours.
Conclusions
Virtual simulation acts as an infrastructure supporting two complementary purposes for IPE, simultaneously addressing systemic access and equity challenges while supporting individual learner development. When aligned with adaptive pedagogy, psychologically safe facilitation, and validated assessment frameworks, virtual simulation for IPE can be equitable, authentic, and scalable. These findings have implications for curriculum design, faculty development, and institutional investment in sustainable virtual simulation platforms.