Display options
Share it on

J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jan 23;16(1):e23. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2593.

A framework for different levels of integration of computational models into web-based virtual patients.

Journal of medical Internet research

Andrzej A Kononowicz, Andrew J Narracott, Simone Manini, Martin J Bayley, Patricia V Lawford, Keith McCormack, Nabil Zary

Affiliations

  1. Digital Patient Lab, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. [email protected].

PMID: 24463466 PMCID: PMC3906686 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.2593

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Virtual patients are increasingly common tools used in health care education to foster learning of clinical reasoning skills. One potential way to expand their functionality is to augment virtual patients' interactivity by enriching them with computational models of physiological and pathological processes.

OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this paper was to propose a conceptual framework for the integration of computational models within virtual patients, with particular focus on (1) characteristics to be addressed while preparing the integration, (2) the extent of the integration, (3) strategies to achieve integration, and (4) methods for evaluating the feasibility of integration. An additional goal was to pilot the first investigation of changing framework variables on altering perceptions of integration.

METHODS: The framework was constructed using an iterative process informed by Soft System Methodology. The Virtual Physiological Human (VPH) initiative has been used as a source of new computational models. The technical challenges associated with development of virtual patients enhanced by computational models are discussed from the perspectives of a number of different stakeholders. Concrete design and evaluation steps are discussed in the context of an exemplar virtual patient employing the results of the VPH ARCH project, as well as improvements for future iterations.

RESULTS: The proposed framework consists of four main elements. The first element is a list of feasibility features characterizing the integration process from three perspectives: the computational modelling researcher, the health care educationalist, and the virtual patient system developer. The second element included three integration levels: basic, where a single set of simulation outcomes is generated for specific nodes in the activity graph; intermediate, involving pre-generation of simulation datasets over a range of input parameters; advanced, including dynamic solution of the model. The third element is the description of four integration strategies, and the last element consisted of evaluation profiles specifying the relevant feasibility features and acceptance thresholds for specific purposes. The group of experts who evaluated the virtual patient exemplar found higher integration more interesting, but at the same time they were more concerned with the validity of the result. The observed differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: This paper outlines a framework for the integration of computational models into virtual patients. The opportunities and challenges of model exploitation are discussed from a number of user perspectives, considering different levels of model integration. The long-term aim for future research is to isolate the most crucial factors in the framework and to determine their influence on the integration outcome.

Keywords: computer simulation; computer-assisted instruction; education, medical; medical informatics applications

References

  1. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011 Apr;7(4):e1001122 - PubMed
  2. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;150:185-9 - PubMed
  3. Med Teach. 2012;34(10):833-9 - PubMed
  4. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2010 Jun 13;368(1920):2595-614 - PubMed
  5. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;173:149-55 - PubMed
  6. J Vasc Access. 2013 Apr-Jun;14(2):180-92 - PubMed
  7. Med Educ. 2009 Apr;43(4):303-11 - PubMed
  8. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;180:958-62 - PubMed
  9. Nat Biotechnol. 2005 Dec;23(12):1509-15 - PubMed
  10. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Apr 06;14(2):e52 - PubMed
  11. Med Teach. 2009 Aug;31(8):743-8 - PubMed
  12. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;163:173-9 - PubMed
  13. Med Educ. 2006 Sep;40(9):867-76 - PubMed
  14. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e34491 - PubMed
  15. Med Teach. 2009 Aug;31(8):725-31 - PubMed
  16. Med Teach. 2009 Aug;31(8):683-4 - PubMed
  17. Med Teach. 2011;33(11):933-7 - PubMed
  18. Med Teach. 2009 Aug;31(8):701-8 - PubMed
  19. BMC Res Notes. 2011 Aug 30;4:313 - PubMed
  20. Med Eng Phys. 2012 Mar;34(2):233-48 - PubMed
  21. Med Teach. 2008;30(2):170-4 - PubMed
  22. Med Educ. 2009 Jun;43(6):580-8 - PubMed
  23. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Apr 02;14(2):e47 - PubMed
  24. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Jul 08;15(7):e135 - PubMed
  25. Med Teach. 2007 Oct;29(8):791-7 - PubMed
  26. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;150:826-30 - PubMed
  27. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;163:213-7 - PubMed
  28. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;169:203-7 - PubMed
  29. Med Teach. 2008 Jun;30(5):455-73 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types