Accessibility settings

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Reviews in Medical Education (277) Undergraduate Education for Future Doctors (253) Undergraduate Education for Allied Health Professionals (79) Design of Educational Technology (105) Training Tools for Medical Students (192) Quality of Medical Educational and Instructional Material (49)

Published on in Vol 12 (2026)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/70324, first published .
Dentist in blue scrubs and gloves performing dental work on a patient

Video Recording of Patient-Clinician Interactions in Health Education: Scoping Review

Video Recording of Patient-Clinician Interactions in Health Education: Scoping Review

Authors of this article:

Mariana Morgado1 Author Orcid Image ;   Yago Leira2 Author Orcid Image ;   Tiago Leitão1 Author Orcid Image ;   José João Mendes1 Author Orcid Image ;   Luís Proença1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    1Egas Moniz Center for Interdisciplinary Research (CiiEM), Egas Moniz School of Health & Science, Campus Universitário s/n, Quinta da Granja, Almada, Portugal

    2Periodontology Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Odontology, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Corresponding Author:

    Mariana Morgado, PhD


    Background: Video recordings of patient-clinician interactions (PCIs) have become an integral tool in health professions education, with authentic opportunities to enhance clinical communication and decision-making skills. Despite their educational value, ethical and logistical challenges regarding their use remain underexplored.

    Objective: This scoping review aims to map the use of video-recorded PCIs in health education, categorizing types and educational purposes, examining applications across disciplines, and identifying ethical and logistical issues.

    Methods: Comprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) databases, supplemented by gray literature, with the last search performed on October 30, 2024. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data on study design, intervention characteristics, educational objectives, and barriers to implementation. Given the scoping review nature, risk of bias assessment was not conducted. Data synthesis involved descriptive analysis and thematic categorization of findings.

    Results: A total of 69 studies met inclusion criteria, predominantly from medical (n=28, 41%), dental (n=15, 22%), and nursing (n=8, 12%) education. Publication frequency increased over the past decade. Studies used varied video types, including authentic consultations, simulated encounters, and procedural recordings. Main educational aims focused on clinical skills, communication, professionalism, and reflective practice. Ethical reporting was inconsistent, with variable adherence to informed consent, patient privacy, and confidentiality standards. Common logistical barriers included limitations in technical infrastructure, data management, and curriculum integration.

    Conclusions: Video-recorded PCIs offer valuable educational resources but face challenges in ethical standardization and logistical feasibility. Future research should prioritize the development of ethical frameworks and standardized protocols, together with the evaluation of long-term educational and psychological outcomes, to support the responsible and scalable integration of PCI recordings into health education curricula.

    Trial Registration: OSF Registries 8w3m6; https://osf.io/8w3m6/overview

    JMIR Med Educ 2026;12:e70324

    doi:10.2196/70324

    Keywords

    video recordings; patient-clinician interaction; medical education; clinical skills; clinician communication; communication skills; health professions education 


    Rationale

    Video-based learning is increasingly recognized as a transformative approach in health professions education, supported by several key educational theories. According to constructivist theory, learners actively build new knowledge by integrating multimedia content with prior experience, a process that is facilitated by the contextual richness of video recordings [1,2]. Cognitive load theory also supports video-based learning, demonstrating that well-designed video materials optimize cognitive processing, reduce extraneous mental effort, and enhance comprehension and retention through dual-channel presentation (visual and auditory) [3-5]. Experiential learning theory emphasizes the value of authentic, concrete experiences, such as those provided by video-recorded patient-clinician interactions (PCIs), which enable learners to observe, reflect, conceptualize, and experiment in a cycle that deepens practical understanding [6-8]. Social learning theory highlights the importance of observation and modeling, with video enabling learners to witness expert behaviors and communication strategies in realistic settings [9,10]. Finally, active learning principles are supported by using video as a springboard for discussion, reflection, and collaborative analysis, all of which are linked to improved learner engagement and knowledge retention [11,12].

    Since the 1960s, there has been a significant evolution in the integration of video recordings into health education, initially used to assess and improve the technical and interpersonal skills of junior doctors [13]. Technological advances have broadened the scope of video applications, from procedural demonstrations to the recording of real or simulated PCIs [14]. These interactions now serve as valuable resources for developing clinical, communication, and reflective skills [15]. Studies have shown that watching video content before practical exercises improves performance, reduces anxiety, and enhances attitudes, particularly in fields such as nursing and medicine [16-18].

    Despite the educational benefits of video recording in clinical education, its adoption raises important ethical and logistical challenges [19,20]. Critical to responsible implementation are ensuring informed consent, maintaining confidentiality, and adhering to legal frameworks such as HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) [21,22]. Logistical barriers, including technical setup, scheduling, and resource allocation, also impact the feasibility of integrating video into curricula [21-23]. While most patients and clinicians recognize the educational value of video recording, concerns about privacy and increased scrutiny persist [22,23].

    In light of the increasing prevalence and complexity of video-based approaches, there is an evident requirement for a systematic mapping of the characteristics, educational outcomes, and practical challenges associated with the video recording of PCIs in health education.

    Objectives

    This scoping review aims to systematically map the use of video recordings of PCIs in health education. More specifically, the review will examine the types and educational purposes of these recordings, compare their effectiveness with that of traditional teaching methods, evaluate their impact on learner outcomes such as clinical competence and communication skills, and identify key ethical and logistical considerations relating to their implementation.


    Study Design

    We conducted a scoping review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer Manual [24,25]. The scoping review is reported according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist [26] (Checklist 1). The final protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework [27] on October 31, 2024.

    Eligibility Criteria

    The eligibility criteria for this scoping review were established a priori in order to comprehensively address the research questions. Studies were included if they assessed the usefulness of video recordings of PCIs as an educational tool in health education. These criteria focused on the types, characteristics, and educational outcomes of these video recordings, as well as the ethical and logistical considerations involved in their use. In order to ensure the relevance of the findings to educational contexts, studies were required to include learners in health education, including medical, nursing, dental, and allied health students of all educational levels, who used video recordings of PCIs as part of their training. The video recordings could include full-length consultations, specific clinical procedures, or role-playing scenarios designed to replicate real-world clinical interactions. Other forms of educational media, such as written case studies or noninteractive video content, were excluded to maintain the focus on interactive and video-based learning. All comparators were eligible for inclusion, encompassing studies that compared video-based learning with traditional teaching methods (eg, lectures or textbooks) or with different video formats (eg, live encounters vs simulated scenarios). Noncomparative studies were also considered, providing a comprehensive understanding of the impact of video-based learning. To capture a wide range of evidence, all types of publications were considered, including peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings, editorials, and book chapters, and no restrictions were placed on the time period or educational setting (eg, universities, colleges, and vocational training programs) to allow for an exploration of trends and developments in the use of video recordings over time. Conversely, studies that did not incorporate learners in health education or that did not use video recordings as a teaching instrument were excluded in order to maintain the focus on the educational application of video-based learning. Studies published in languages other than English were excluded to ensure consistency in data extraction and analysis. Furthermore, unpublished studies and non–peer-reviewed literature were excluded to ensure the credibility and reliability of the findings.

    Information Sources

    A comprehensive literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) to identify potentially relevant studies on the use of video recordings of PCIs in health education. The final date for the retrieval of articles was October 30, 2024, thereby ensuring that the information included in this review is current.

    In addition to the electronic database searches, a comprehensive gray literature search was conducted in accordance with the CADTH (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health) Grey Matters checklist (Checklist 2). This entailed an investigation of a range of gray literature sources and relevant websites with a view to identifying unpublished or difficult-to-locate studies related to video-based learning. Furthermore, the reference lists of pertinent reviews were examined to ascertain any additional studies that may have been overlooked in the database searches. This approach facilitated a more comprehensive collection of information, encompassing both published literature and challenging-to-locate documents.

    The final search results were exported into Zotero (Digital Scholar), a reference management software. The presence of duplicates was identified through the use of Zotero’s automated duplicate detection function, which uses a comparison of citation fields such as title, authors, publication year, and journal. A manual review was conducted when necessary in order to ensure that all duplicates were accurately identified and excluded prior to the screening process. This multifaceted search strategy was designed to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the existing literature on the use of video as an educational tool in health education.

    Search Strategy

    To facilitate replication, the comprehensive search strategy used, including specific database terms, filters, and a systematic approach to the gray literature, is described below. The primary search strategy, conducted entirely in MEDLINE, is presented in Multimedia Appendix 1, with parallel structures applied to additional databases including Embase and ERIC. This search strategy was developed by one researcher, peer-reviewed by a more experienced member of the research team, and finalized on October 30, 2024.

    Selection of Sources of Evidence

    The selection of sources for this scoping review was designed to enable a comprehensive mapping of the use and impact of video recordings of PCIs in health education. To ensure consistency, a calibration exercise was initially conducted. This involved all reviewers independently screening a set of 20 publications with the aim of ensuring a consistent interpretation of the inclusion criteria. This process revealed ambiguities, which were subsequently addressed through group discussions and resulted in the formulation of specific amendments to the screening and data extraction manual.

    To facilitate the selection process and ensure consistency, a bespoke screening form was created in Google Sheets. The form included specific questions aligned with the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) framework, which were designed to elicit information regarding the type of video recording (eg, consultations, clinical procedures, and role-playing scenarios), its educational purpose (eg, teaching clinical or communication skills), and how it compares with traditional teaching methods. The form was then trialed by multiple reviewers using sample citations and full-text articles, enabling the questions and layout to be refined to ensure optimal clarity and ease of use. The use of Google Sheets facilitated data management and the efficient tracking of selection decisions.

    In the formal screening phase, each title, abstract, and full-text publication identified in the search was evaluated independently by two reviewers (MM and TL), thereby ensuring unbiased study selection. The implementation of an independent duplicate screening process served to minimize the risk of relevant studies being omitted. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved through consensus discussions. In the event of persistent disagreement, a third reviewer was consulted to make the final decision. This structured and standardized approach guaranteed that our scoping review was conducted systematically, thereby yielding a reliable set of sources for the evaluation of the role of video recordings in enhancing educational outcomes in health education.

    Data Charting Process

    A structured data charting form was developed for the purpose of data extraction, with the objective of capturing detailed information from each included source. The charting form was designed with the specific intention of collecting data that aligned with the review’s PICO framework and objectives. It included headers such as screening status, author, year, origin, type of article, study design, aims/purpose, study population, area of study, sample size, methods, intervention type, duration, comparator, outcome measures, and key findings that relate to research questions. The structured approach enabled the systematic capture of data pertaining to the characteristics of the studies, the details of the interventions, and the outcomes.

    The initial charting form was developed by two reviewers in collaboration, with items selected based on their relevance to the study objectives. The form was trialed on a sample set of studies, with each reviewer independently charting the data and discussing the results to identify areas requiring elucidation. As a result of this iterative pilot testing, minor adjustments were made to the form in order to ensure clarity and comprehensive coverage. All modifications were duly documented.

    In the phase of comprehensive data charting, each study was independently charted by two reviewers using Google Sheets. This approach ensured the organized management of data and enabled the tracking of updates in real time. Any discrepancies in the charting process were resolved through consensus-based discussions. In the event of an unresolved issue, a third reviewer was consulted to provide a final decision. In instances where essential data required clarification, the study investigators were directly contacted.

    The structured approach to both selection and data charting guaranteed a comprehensive and reliable dataset, which constituted a robust basis for the analysis of the role of video recordings in health education. Furthermore, it permitted an in-depth examination of the impact of these tools on the educational outcomes of health learners.

    Data Items

    The following key characteristics were abstracted from the included articles: author and year of publication, origin of the study, type of article, research design, and data type. Furthermore, additional variables were included, such as the aims and purpose of the research, the characteristics of the student population (eg, year of study, study cycle, and area of study), and details of the intervention (eg, type, duration, and comparator). Additionally, data were collected on the sample size, outcome variables, and instruments used to measure these outcomes. The data items were designed to capture both qualitative and quantitative information, where applicable. For instance, outcome variables and instruments required reviewer judgment based on study reporting. The complete data chart is available in Multimedia Appendix 2, and the detailed definitions of each data item are provided in Multimedia Appendix 3.

    Synthesis of Results

    To synthesize the range of evidence included in the scoping review, the studies were grouped based on the type of intervention, which included PCIs, simulated PCIs, and other forms of intervention. For each group, key characteristics were summarized, including the types of settings, populations, and study designs, along with the measures used and the broad findings. Moreover, the studies were classified according to the comparator groups, which included the following: no intervention/control group, traditional methods, simulated PCIs, PCIs, static video recordings of simulated PCIs, self-guided learning, and various other methods.

    Studies were also categorized according to the research design and data type used. The research designs included quasi-experimental, observational, descriptive, randomized controlled trial, phenomenological, experimental, comparative, case study, cross-sectional, and nonexperimental. With regard to the data types, the studies were classified as follows: those using a mixed methods approach, those using quantitative methods, and those using qualitative methods.

    In addition, the studies were classified according to article type, comprising original research papers and review articles, including literature reviews, scoping reviews, and systematic reviews. Moreover, the studies were classified according to the population degree. The distribution included the following categories: undergraduate, postgraduate, undergraduate and postgraduate, master’s, not applicable, not stated, undergraduate and master’s, and doctorate.

    The evidence was further synthesized by categorizing it into key areas of study, including medical education, dental education, nursing education, interprofessional education in health care, occupational therapy education, speech-language therapy education, veterinary medical education, pharmacy education, nutrition and dietetics education, and physiotherapy education.

    We synthesized the collated data by using descriptive statistics (frequencies and proportions). We used Microsoft Excel and SPSS software (version 26.0; IBM Corp) to analyze the data.

    The results were presented in both narrative form and tabular format. The former provided an overview of the studies within each category and subcategory, while the latter highlighted the general outcome variables and instruments used. Moreover, visual representations, such as diagrams, were included to facilitate the illustration of the distribution of studies across the various categories.

    The full synthesis and comprehensive categorization of all evidence are presented in tabular and visual form, facilitating a more nuanced comprehension of the trends, gaps, and overarching findings derived from the reviewed studies.


    Selection of Sources of Evidence

    The search strategy yielded a total of 15,281 records, of which 12,081 were screened after the removal of duplicates. Following a thorough examination of the full texts, 69 studies were identified as suitable candidates for inclusion in the scoping review [15,20,28-94]. The exclusion of patient-clinician video recordings, the use of non–video-based or irrelevant technologies, and noneducational contexts were identified as the most common reasons for exclusion. The comprehensive selection process is delineated in Figure 1, which details the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion outcomes.

    ‎
    Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram showing inclusion and exclusion strategy [26].

    Characteristics of Sources Evidence

    Multimedia Appendix 2 summarizes each individual source of evidence’s objectives, target population, research setting, research design, data collection methods, outcome measures, and primary findings. The references for each study are provided in the list of sources alongside the relevant details.

    Synthesis of Results

    Characteristics of the Included Documents

    The 69 included studies demonstrate a clear increase in research interest in video-based learning over time, with the majority of these studies having been published between 2011 and 2020 (n=41, 59%) (Table 1). This trend underscores the growing recognition of video-based learning as a valuable tool in health education.

    Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies by publication year, article type, research design, and data type (n=69).
    CharacteristicsStudies, n (%)
    Publication year (n=69)
    Before 20003 (4)
    2001‐201014 (20)
    2011‐202041 (59)
    Since 202111 (16)
    Data type (n=62)
    Mixed methods29 (47)
    Quantitative17 (27)
    Qualitative16 (26)
    Type of article and research design (n=69)
    Original research article
    Quasi-experimental design23 (33)
    Observational design15 (22)
    Descriptive design5 (7)
    Randomized controlled trial5 (7)
    Phenomenological design4 (6)
    Experimental design4 (6)
    Comparative design2 (3)
    Case study design2 (3)
    Cross-sectional design1 (1)
    Nonexperimental design1 (1)
    Review article
    Literature review4 (6)
    Scoping review2 (3)
    Systematic review1 (1)
    Place of publication (n=69)
    North America
    United States33 (48)
    Canada3 (4)
    Europe
    United Kingdom5 (7)
    Sweden5 (7)
    Denmark2 (3)
    Netherlands1 (1)
    Norway1 (1)
    Spain1 (1)
    Ireland1 (1)
    Germany1 (1)
    Asia
    South Korea3 (4)
    Turkey2 (3)
    China2 (3)
    Saudi Arabia1 (1)
    Japan1 (1)
    India1 (1)
    Oceania
    Australia4 (6)
    Africa
    South Africa2 (3)

    In terms of geography, the largest proportion of studies originated from North America (n=36, 52%), with the United States contributing 33 (48%) of these. The other regions represented were Europe (n=17, 25%), Asia (n=10, 15%), Oceania (n=4, 6%), and Africa (n=2, 3%). This distribution illustrated the global adoption of this educational approach (Table 1).

    A significant proportion of the included studies were original research articles (n=62, 90%). The most prevalent research designs were quasi-experimental (n=23, 33%) and observational (n=15, 22%), reflecting a focus on applied educational interventions. Methodologically, the most prevalent approach was that of mixed methods studies (29/62, 47%), followed by quantitative (17/62, 27%) and qualitative (16/62, 26%) designs. This distribution reflects increasing recognition of the importance of combining quantitative outcomes with contextual, learner-centered perspectives when evaluating video-based learning. The extensive use of original datasets, in conjunction with the emphasis on the cultivation of clinical and communication skills, rather than merely theoretical knowledge, further reinforces the applied, practice-oriented character of video-based learning research. For a comprehensive overview of the breakdowns of research designs and data types, please refer to Table 1.

    Educational Contexts and Learner Populations

    The majority of studies were conducted in the field of medical education (n=28, 41%), followed by dental education (n=15, 22%) and nursing education (n=8, 12%). Regarding the level of learners, the overwhelming focus was on undergraduate students, who were the subject of 50 studies (73%) and accounted for 4648 participants, or 83% of the total sample (n=5685). Please refer to Table 2 for details on the distribution by health field and learner level.

    Table 2. Distribution of included studies and sample sizes by health discipline and education level.
    Studies (N=69), n (%)Sample size (N=5685), n (%)
    Health field of study
    Medical education28 (41)2170 (38)
    Dental education15 (22)1298 (23)
    Nursing education8 (12)317 (6)
    Interprofessional education (IPE) in health care4 (6)903 (16)
    Occupational therapy education4 (6)294 (5)
    Speech-language therapy education3 (4)75 (1)
    Veterinary medical education3 (4)600 (11)
    Pharmacy education2 (3)8 (0)
    Nutrition and dietetics education1 (1)12 (0)
    Physiotherapy education1 (1)8 (0)
    Educational level
    Undergraduate50 (72)4648 (82)
    Postgraduate5 (7)97 (2)
    Undergraduate and postgraduate3 (4)515 (9)
    Master3 (4)114 (2)
    Undergraduate and master’s1 (1)14 (0)
    Doctorate1 (1)24 (0)
    Not stated3 (4)181 (3)
    Not applicable3 (4)92 (2)
    Types and Characteristics of Interventions and Comparators

    Intervention types were grouped into 3 main categories: PCIs, simulated PCIs, and other methods of video-based education (Table 3). One study contributed two intervention types to the total of 70 instances across 69 studies.

    The most frequently used intervention across the included studies was video recordings of PCIs, either in their raw form or for review and reflection purposes. This category accounted for 39 (56%) out of the 70 recorded intervention types. The second-largest intervention category was simulated PCIs, present in 22 (31%) out of 70 intervention types.

    The comparators varied widely. The most common approach was to use a control or no-intervention group, which was used in 32 (46%) out of 69 studies. Traditional teaching methods, such as lectures and textbooks, were used as comparators in 26 (38%) out of 69 studies (Table 4). One study contributed two comparator types to the total of 70 instances across 69 studies.

    Table 3. Intervention and subintervention types of the included studies (n=69). One study reported dual interventions (n=70 across 69 studies; see Multimedia Appendix 2).
    Intervention/subintervention typeStudies, n (%)
    Patient-clinician interactions
    Video recording of patient-clinician interactions24 (34)
    Review of video recording of patient-clinician interactions14 (20)
    First-person video recording of patient-clinician interactions1 (1)
    Simulated patient-clinician interactions
    Video recording of simulated patient-clinician interactions15 (21)
    Review of video recording of simulated patient-clinician interactions6 (9)
    First-person video recording of simulated patient-clinician interactions1 (1)
    Other
    Video case-based learning4 (6)
    Video-based assessment3 (4)
    Various video-based education methods2 (3)
    Table 4. Comparator types of the included studies (n=69). One study reported dual comparators (n=70 across 69 studies; see Multimedia Appendix 2).
    Comparator typeStudies, n (%)
    No intervention/control group32 (46)
    Traditional methods26 (37)
    Simulated PCIsa5 (7)
    Patient-clinician interactions3 (4)
    Static video recordings of simulated PCIs2 (3)
    Self-guided learning1 (1)
    Various1 (1)

    aPCIs: patient-clinician interactions.

    The average duration of video-based interventions across all studies was approximately 20.37 minutes. Those involving PCIs exhibited considerable variation, with an overall mean duration of 19.44 minutes. Video recordings of PCIs were the longest on average (24.53 minutes), followed by reviews of these recordings (23.29 minutes). By contrast, simulated interactions tended to be shorter, particularly reviews of simulated recordings (5.67 minutes) and first-person perspectives (10.50 minutes) (Table 5).

    Table 5. Mean duration of different types of PCIa interventions.
    Intervention/subintervention typeMean duration (min)
    PCIs
    Video recording of PCIs24.53
    Review of video recording of PCIs23.29
    First-person video recording of PCIs10.50
    Simulated PCIs
    Video recording of simulated PCIs22.22
    Review of video recording of simulated PCIs5.67
    First-person video recording of simulated PCIs10.50

    aPCI: patient-clinician interaction.

    Outcome Categories and Subcategories

    A total of 226 outcome variables were extracted and categorized within a structured framework of domains, subcategories, and specific variables (Figure 2; Multimedia Appendices 4 and 5).

    The category most frequently assessed was clinical competence, accounting for 46 (20%) out of 226 outcomes. Within this domain, clinical skills comprised the majority (29/226, 13%), with a particular focus on clinical reasoning, diagnostic accuracy, technical skills, and procedural application. A further 17 (8%) out of 226 outcomes focused on clinical performance, including metrics such as performance assessments, efficiency, and reliability.

    Communication skills were the second-largest outcome domain, with 44 (19%) out of 226 outcomes. This category was subdivided into verbal and nonverbal communication (23/226, 10%), patient interaction and empathy (12/226, 5%), and communication-focused reflection (9/226, 4%). Common variables included communication behaviors, nonverbal awareness, and patient-centeredness.

    The third most prominent category was engagement and the learning experience. This category comprised 44 (19%) out of 226 outcomes and was divided into 4 subcategories: learner satisfaction, perceptions, motivation, and interaction with the educational environment. Learner engagement alone was reported in 22 (10%) out of 226 outcomes, highlighting the importance of video-based learning in encouraging active participation and boosting learners’ confidence.

    Further outcome domains included critical thinking and reasoning (23/226, 10%), which focused on knowledge retention, problem identification and self-reflection, and feedback and evaluation (23/226, 10%), which encompassed feedback quality, feedback from standardized patients, and self-assessment metrics.

    Emotional and psychological outcomes were documented in 17 (8%) out of 226, addressing emotional responses, confidence, affective learning, and personal development. Less frequently reported categories included educational process outcomes (n=14, 6%), such as the perceived effectiveness of learning tools, as well as outcomes related to teamwork and interprofessional learning (n=8, 4%), and outcomes related to the patient-centered clinical context (n=7, 3%).

    ‎
    Figure 2. Radial hierarchical bar chart illustrating the distribution of outcome variables across educational domains. Bar length corresponds to the frequency of outcomes within each category.
    Assessment Instruments and Measurement Tools

    A total of 101 instruments were extracted and categorized within a structured framework of domains, subcategories, and specific instruments. The detailed list of specific instruments and their classifications can be found in Multimedia Appendix 6.

    The most frequently used instruments were questionnaires and surveys (34/101, 34%), predominantly general, with a smaller proportion addressing specific topics including validated tools such as the Care Plan Evaluation [31], the Compassionate Care Interactions Questionnaire [53], the Froehlich Communication Survey [31], and the Interprofessional Collaborative Competencies Attainment Survey (ICCAS) [31]. Observation and analysis tools accounted for 20 out of 101 instruments (20%), including conversation and thematic analysis, microanalysis, and structured observation checklists. Interviews and focus groups were used in 12 out of 101 instruments (12%), primarily in the form of focus group discussions and semistructured interviews. Technical and performance assessments were documented in 12 out of 101 instruments (12%), predominantly as “objective and structured assessments” (n=8, 8%), such as the Bariatric Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (BOSATS) and the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS) [28,62]. Performance metrics were documented in 4 out of 101 instruments (4%), focusing on clinical documentation and diagnostic accuracy. For a comprehensive list of instruments and their characteristics, please refer to Table 6.

    Table 6. Categorization of instruments of the included studies by category and subcategory (n=101).
    Category/subcategoryStudies, n (%)
    Questionnaires and surveys
    General surveys28 (28)
    Specific topic-based questionnaires6 (6)
    Observations and analysis tools
    Conversation and thematic analysis8 (8)
    Transcription and coding6 (6)
    Microanalysis and critical thinking3 (3)
    Observation tools3 (3)
    Interviews and focus groups
    Focus group discussions6 (6)
    Semistructured interviews5 (5)
    Video elicitation interviews1 (1)
    Technical and performance assessments
    Objective and structured assessments8 (8)
    Performance metrics4 (4)
    Peer and self-assessment
    Self-assessments7 (7)
    Peer and faculty assessments2 (2)
    Feedback and satisfaction tools
    Feedback mechanisms6 (6)
    Peer-led approaches1 (1)
    Grading and rubrics
    Grading tools3 (3)
    Data analytics
    Activity logs and analytics2 (2)
    Specialized instruments and scales
    Specialized questionnaires and scales5 (5)
    Ethical Implications and Logistical Challenges
    Ethical Implications and Risk Mapping

    Out of the 69 studies included in this scoping review, only 34 (49%) explicitly addressed ethical considerations, which were grouped into 6 primary domains, as summarized in Table 7. The detailed list of ethical considerations can be found in Multimedia Appendix 7.

    Table 7. Categorization of ethical considerations addressed in the included studies (n=69).
    Ethical considerationsDefinitionStudies, n (%)
    Informed consentProcess for obtaining explicit permission from patients before recording their interactions with clinicians33 (48)
    Confidentiality and privacyEnsure the protection of patient information through secure handling and anonymization33 (48)
    Ethical use of recordingsEnsure that recorded patient-clinician interactions are used only for their intended educational or research purposes, with clear guidelines and appropriate consent for any secondary use9 (13)
    Emotional impactRecognizing and mitigating the psychological effects that recording clinical interactions may have on patients and clinicians, such as stress, discomfort, or altered behavior8 (12)
    Regulatory complianceAdhere to legal and institutional standards, such as privacy laws and ethical guidelines, to ensure the proper handling, storage, and use of recordings in clinical and educational settings6 (9)

    Informed consent and confidentiality and privacy were reported in 33 (48%) out of 69 studies each, reflecting a moderate emphasis on obtaining explicit permission and protecting data. The ethical use of recordings was discussed in 9 out of 69 studies (13%), focusing on restricting use to approved educational or research purposes. Of the 69 studies, 8 (12%) considered the emotional impact of recording on participants, and 6 (9%) mentioned compliance with regulations and institutional policies.

    Ethical considerations were categorized into 3 risk levels based on prevalence: low risk (addressed in more than 75% of relevant studies), moderate risk (addressed in 50%‐75% of studies), and high risk (addressed in less than 50% of studies), as illustrated in Figure 3. Informed consent and confidentiality and privacy were classified as low risk relative to studies that addressed ethical issues but as high risk in absolute terms, indicating that these considerations were omitted in over half of the total sample (Table 8). Other considerations, including emotional impact, ethical use of recordings, and regulatory compliance, were classified as high risk under both relative and absolute criteria.

    ‎
    Figure 3. Flowchart of risk mapping for ethical considerations in the included studies.
    Table 8. Risk map of ethical considerations in the included studies (n=69).
    Ethical considerationsRisk level (relative)Relative %Risk level (absolute)Absolute %
    Informed consentLow risk100High risk48
    Confidentiality and privacyLow risk100High risk48
    Emotional impactHigh risk24High risk12
    Ethical use of recordingsHigh risk27High risk13
    Regulatory complianceHigh risk18High risk9
    Logistical Challenges

    A total of 69 studies were included in this scoping review, of which 33 (48%) addressed logistical challenges. These challenges were categorized into 5 core domains, as detailed in Table 9. A comprehensive list of these challenges can be found in Multimedia Appendix 8.

    As shown in Table 9, the most frequently reported challenges across studies were technical setup (33/69, 48%) and scheduling coordination (30/69, 43%). Additionally, less frequently reported challenges included resource allocation (14/69, 20%), training for participants (8/69, 12%), and feedback mechanisms (6/69, 9%). These findings underscore the need to address these key areas to optimize implementation processes, as technical setup and scheduling coordination are critical factors that impact study outcomes.

    Table 9. Categorization of logistical considerations addressed in the included studies (n=69).
    Logistical considerationDefinitionStudies, n (%)
    Technical setupEnsure that recording equipment is properly set up and functioning, including video/audio recording technology and connectivity.33 (48)
    Scheduling coordinationCoordinate patient, clinician, and technical staff schedules to ensure recording sessions are timely and uninterrupted.30 (43)
    Resource allocationManage the allocation of technical resources, including equipment, time, and teacher support for recording sessions.14 (20)
    Training for participantsProvide appropriate training for staff, clinicians, and students in the use of recording technology and protocols.8 (12)
    Feedback mechanismsOrganize feedback sessions and ensure appropriate processes are in place to provide reflective feedback to participants.6 (9)

    This scoping review systematically mapped the use of video recordings of PCIs in health education, with a focus on the following areas: types of recordings, educational purposes, comparative effectiveness, impact on learner outcomes, and key ethical and logistical considerations.

    Principal Findings

    This scoping review identified 69 studies examining the use of video recordings of PCIs for health education purposes. The majority of these studies focused on medical education (28/69, 41%), followed by dental education (15/69, 22%) and nursing education (8/69, 12%). This highlights the widespread emphasis on clinical skill development across health disciplines. Of the 69 included studies, 41 (59%) were published between 2011 and 2020, reflecting a growing interest in video-based pedagogical tools. The analyzed interventions included real and simulated patient-clinician encounters, with real clinical interactions predominating.

    Video-based learning was generally associated with improvements in key educational outcomes, particularly in the domains of clinical competence, communication skills, and learner engagement. Where available, comparisons with traditional instructional methods suggested that video recordings may provide advantages or complementary benefits for experiential and reflective learning. However, the heterogeneity of study designs, outcome measurements, and assessment tools limited the comparability of the findings, preventing definitive conclusions from being drawn regarding their overall efficacy of video-based learning.

    Ethical considerations, particularly informed consent and confidentiality, were addressed inconsistently across studies, mapping these as high-risk areas. Logistical challenges, including technological limitations and scheduling constraints, were also commonly reported. Despite these limitations, video recordings of PCIs were consistently perceived by educators and learners alike as valuable, versatile, and pedagogically effective tools in the context of contemporary health education.

    Comparison to Prior Work

    The findings of this scoping review indicate that video recordings of PCIs are increasingly incorporated into health professions education and are widely regarded as valuable pedagogical tools for supporting the development of core clinical competencies. The reviewed literature highlights the use of PCI recordings across a variety of educational objectives, including enabling learners to observe complex, real-world clinical interactions; fostering reflective practice; and providing structured opportunities for formative feedback [95,96]. These uses are indicative of a more general pedagogical shift toward learner-centered, active educational strategies, which are grounded in well-established theoretical frameworks such as experiential learning, social learning, and constructivism [3,97,98].

    PCI recordings facilitate the experiential learning theory model by enabling learners to engage with authentic clinical scenarios in a safe and repeatable format, promoting both observation and reflection prior to active clinical engagement [99,100]. In a similar vein, Bandura’s social learning theory emphasizes the significance of modeling and observational learning in the acquisition of behavior [98]. PCI recordings facilitate the observation of expert communication strategies, diagnostic reasoning, and interpersonal conduct in action, thereby providing a reference point for the learner’s own professional practice [20].

    The extant literature also positions PCI recordings as an effective bridge between theoretical instruction and clinical application. This function is underpinned by constructivist learning theory, which posits that learners build knowledge through contextual engagement and integration of new information into existing cognitive frameworks [101,102]. PCI recordings situate learning within the complexity of real clinical contexts, offering nuanced representations of uncertainty, interpersonal dynamics, and decision-making. Furthermore, the principles of cognitive load theory provide additional support for the use of video as a tool to scaffold complex learning [100,102]. The provision of multimodal content, encompassing visual, auditory, and contextual elements, is a salient feature of PCI recordings. This multimodal approach has been demonstrated to facilitate the management of both intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load, a phenomenon that is particularly pronounced when these recordings are used in conjunction with instructional scaffolding or expert narration [12,103,104].

    It is important to note that PCI recordings also support the development of metacognitive skills and professional identity formation. The observation of actual clinicians engaged in complex patient interactions serves to encourage learners to engage in reflection on their future roles, values, and behaviors as health professionals [105,106]. This approach is in alignment with the emerging educational goals that place a premium not only on competence, but also on ethical reasoning, self-awareness, and identity development [107-110]. Consequently, the use of PCI recordings transcends the delivery of content, thereby supporting the comprehensive professional development of learners.

    Strengths and Limitations

    This scoping review is strengthened by its comprehensive, methodologically rigorous design following Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. A comprehensive search strategy encompassing multiple databases (ie, MEDLINE, Embase, and ERIC) and gray literature was used to enhance the scope of the study and mitigate publication bias. The implementation of dual independent screening and data extraction processes served to ensure the consistency of the review and to minimize the impact of reviewer bias.

    This study focuses specifically on video recordings of authentic or simulated PCIs, rather than generic video tools. This approach allows for a detailed examination of unique pedagogical, ethical, and implementation issues. The incorporation of studies from diverse health professions has been demonstrated to enhance the generalizability of research findings.

    It is important to note several limitations of the study. First, substantial heterogeneity in study design, interventions, and outcomes limited the comparability of the studies, and thus prevented meta-analysis. The paucity of standardized, validated outcome measures, coupled with the dearth of direct comparisons with traditional methods, serves to impede the ability to draw definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the latter. Second, the majority of studies assessed short-term outcomes exclusively, thereby leaving the question of long-term impacts on clinical performance and patient care unanswered. Third, ethical and logistical considerations were inconsistently reported, reflecting variable adherence to institutional and regulatory frameworks (eg, HIPAA), which complicates establishing best practices. Fourth, practical barriers such as limited access to recording, privacy concerns, faculty training gaps, and administrative burdens were frequently mentioned but insufficiently detailed. Finally, the restriction of the review to English-language publications may have resulted in the exclusion of pertinent non-English studies, and some unpublished or nonindexed evidence may have been overlooked.

    Future Directions

    It is recommended that future research efforts concentrate on the development and widespread adoption of standardized, validated outcome measures. The objective of this recommendation is to enable rigorous evaluation and meta-analytic synthesis of PCI-based educational interventions. The necessity for well-designed longitudinal and controlled studies is evident in order to elucidate the sustained effects of PCI recordings on clinical competence, behavioral change, and patient-centered outcomes.

    There is a need for improvement in the consistency of reporting and adherence to ethical standards, including informed consent and data protection protocols. The establishment of formal institutional policies is necessary to ensure regulatory compliance and to safeguard the rights of participants. In order to achieve this, a coordinated effort is required among educators, clinicians, institutional review boards, and legal authorities to develop ethical frameworks that are scalable and practical. These frameworks must balance educational efficacy with legal and moral obligations. Empirical evaluation of these frameworks’ impact on feasibility, learner outcomes, and patient perceptions is warranted to inform implementation best practices.

    In order to address logistical barriers, there is a necessity for institutional commitment to resource allocation, the development of scalable technological solutions, comprehensive faculty development, and streamlined administrative processes. The identification and dissemination of effective implementation strategies will be vital for the successful integration of PCI recordings into health professions curricula.

    Furthermore, the expansion of the research scope to encompass a range of health professions, educational settings, and non-English language publications is expected to enhance the external validity and global applicability of findings.

    Collectively, these directions are essential to advance the evidence base and optimize the integration of PCI recordings within health professions education.

    Conclusions

    This scoping review systematically maps the current landscape of video recordings of PCIs in health education. A synthesis of 69 studies shows that video-based methodologies are being adopted more widely in medical, dental, and nursing curricula. There is robust evidence that these methodologies are more effective than traditional methods in improving clinical skills, communication, and learner engagement.

    However, despite these educational benefits, the review identifies critical and persistent gaps in ethical and logistical domains. Informed consent and confidentiality were addressed inconsistently, highlighting the need for standardized ethical protocols and rigorous safeguarding of patient data. Logistical barriers, including technical setup, scheduling, and resource allocation, remain significant impediments to widespread implementation.

    A notable finding is the marked heterogeneity in outcome measures and assessment instruments, which limits comparability and synthesis across studies. This emphasizes the urgent need for the development and adoption of standardized, validated outcome sets and measurement tools in future research.

    Taken together, these findings emphasize the transformative potential and complex challenges of integrating video recordings into health education. Responsible and effective use of this technology depends on establishing robust ethical frameworks, standardized methodologies, and institutional commitment to best practices. Prioritizing these issues will be crucial for maximizing the educational impact and ensuring the sustainability of video-based learning in health professions education.

    Funding

    This work was supported by FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P.) by project reference UID/4585/2025.

    Data Availability

    The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. In addition, datasets and supplementary materials are provided as multimedia appendices with this article.

    Authors' Contributions

    LP and MM conceptualized the study. MM and LP curated the data. Formal analysis was performed by MM, TL, and YL. Funding acquisition was managed by JJM. Investigation was conducted by MM and TL. Methodology was developed by MM, LP, and JJM. Project administration was carried out by MM and LP. Resources were provided by MM and JJM. Software was managed by MM and LP. Supervision was provided by LP and JJM. Validation was performed by LP and JJM. Visualization was completed by MM, YL, and TL. MM and LP wrote the original draft. MM, YL, LP, JJM, and TL reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Search strategy.

    DOCX File, 29 KB

    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Summary of extracted data.

    DOCX File, 76 KB

    Multimedia Appendix 3

    Definitions of data items.

    DOCX File, 18 KB

    Multimedia Appendix 4

    Categorization of outcome variables of the included studies by author and year, category, subcategory, general outcome variable, and specific outcome variable.

    DOCX File, 45 KB

    Multimedia Appendix 5

    Categorization of outcome variables of the included studies by category, subcategory, and general outcome variable.

    DOCX File, 35 KB

    Multimedia Appendix 6

    Categorization of specific instruments of the included studies by author and year, category, and subcategory.

    DOCX File, 25 KB

    Multimedia Appendix 7

    Categorization of ethical considerations addressed in the included studies.

    DOCX File, 19 KB

    Multimedia Appendix 8

    Categorization of logistical considerations addressed in the included studies.

    DOCX File, 18 KB

    Checklist 1

    PRISMA-ScR checklist.

    DOCX File, 119 KB

    Checklist 2

    CADTH Grey Matters checklist.

    DOC File, 1148 KB
    1. Bull PH. Cognitive constructivist theory of multimedia: designing teacher-made interactive digital. Creat Educ. 2013;04(9):614-619. [CrossRef]
    2. Kaufman DM. Teaching and learning in medical education: how theory can inform practice. In: Swanwick T, Forrest K, O’Brien BC, editors. Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, Theory, and Practice. Wiley; 2018:37-69. [CrossRef]
    3. Dong H, Lio J, Sherer R, Jiang I. Some learning theories for medical educators. Med Sci Educ. Mar 22, 2021;31(3):1157-1172. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Mutlu-Bayraktar D, Cosgun V, Altan T. Cognitive load in multimedia learning environments: a systematic review. Comput Educ. Nov 2019;141:103618. [CrossRef]
    5. Sweller J. Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In: Mayer R, editor. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press; 2005:19-30. [CrossRef]
    6. Harris IB. Conceptions and theories of learning for workplace education. In: Extraordinary Learning in the Workplace. Springer Nature; 2011:39-62. [CrossRef]
    7. Morris TH. Experiential learning – a systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model. Interact Learn Environ. Nov 16, 2020;28(8):1064-1077. [CrossRef]
    8. Kolb DA, Boyatzis RE, Mainemelis C. Experiential learning theory: previous research and new directions. In: Sternberg RJ, Zhang L, editors. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles. Routledge; 2015:227-248. [CrossRef]
    9. Mann KV. Theoretical perspectives in medical education: past experience and future possibilities. Med Educ. Jan 2011;45(1):60-68. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Stanley MJ, Banks S, Matthew W, Brown S. Operationalization of Bandura’s social learning theory to guide interprofessional simulation. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2020;10(10):61. [CrossRef]
    11. Chauvin SW. Applying educational theory to simulation-based training and assessment in surgery. Surg Clin North Am. Aug 2015;95(4):695-715. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Brame CJ. Effective educational videos: principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE Life Sci Educ. Oct 13, 2017;15(4):es6. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Butler DJ. A review of published guidance for video recording in medical education. Fam Syst Health. Mar 2018;36(1):4-16. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Chowdhury PN, Vaish A, Puri B, Vaishya R. Medical education technology: past, present and future. Apollo Med. Dec 2024;21(4):374-380. [CrossRef]
    15. Roland D, Coats TJ, Matheson D. Towards a conceptual framework demonstrating the effectiveness of audiovisual patient descriptions (patient video cases): a review of the current literature. BMC Med Educ. Dec 21, 2012;12(1):125. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Salina L, Ruffinengo C, Garrino L, et al. Effectiveness of an educational video as an instrument to refresh and reinforce the learning of a nursing technique: a randomized controlled trial. Perspect Med Educ. May 2012;1(2):67-75. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Glosser LD, Lombardi CV, Hopper WA, et al. Impact of educational instruction on medical student performance in simulation patient. Int J Med Educ. Jun 23, 2022;13:158-170. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Clerkin R, Patton D, Moore Z, Nugent L, Avsar P, O’Connor T. What is the impact of video as a teaching method on achieving psychomotor skills in nursing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today. Apr 2022;111:105280. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. O’Reilly M, Parker N, Hutchby I. Ongoing processes of managing consent: the empirical ethics of using video-recording in clinical practice and research. Clin Ethics. Dec 5, 2011;6(4):179-185. [CrossRef]
    20. Henry SG, White AEC, Magnan EM, et al. Making the most of video recorded clinical encounters: optimizing impact and productivity through interdisciplinary teamwork. Patient Educ Couns. Oct 2020;103(10):2178-2184. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Gabrielli M, Valera L, Barrientos M. Audio and panoramic video recording in the operating room: legal and ethical perspectives. J Med Ethics. Jan 7, 2022;47(12):798-802. [CrossRef]
    22. Lloyd A, Lowe DJ, Edgar S, Caesar D, Dewar A, Clegg GR. Video recording in the emergency department: a pathway to success. Emerg Med J. Sep 2017;34(9):628-630. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Brogaard L, Uldbjerg N. Filming for auditing of real-life emergency teams: a systematic review. BMJ Open Qual. Dec 6, 2019;8(4):e000588. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. Sep 2015;13(3):141-146. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Scoping reviews. In: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020:407-453. [CrossRef]
    26. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. Oct 2, 2018;169(7):467-473. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Morgado M. Video recordings of patient-clinician interactions in health education. OSF; Oct 31, 2024. [CrossRef]
    28. Ahmet A, Gamze K, Rustem M, Sezen KA. Is video-based education an effective method in surgical education? A systematic review. J Surg Educ. 2018;75(5):1150-1158. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Alsalamah YS, Alharbi MS, Labani S, et al. Video-based simulation among Saudi undergraduate nursing students during COVID-19: a qualitative study. Cureus. Nov 10, 2023;15(11):e48605. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Balslev T, de Grave WS, Muijtjens AMM, Scherpbier A. Comparison of text and video cases in a postgraduate problem-based learning format. Med Educ. Nov 2005;39(11):1086-1092. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Batteson TJ, Chirica MG, Fox KS, et al. Utilizing video simulation in interprofessional education to teach IPEC competencies and social determinants of health: a universal IPE teaching tool. J Interprof Educ Pract. Jun 2023;31:100617. [CrossRef]
    32. Bessette H, Kapanen AI, Medgyesi N, Yuen J. Learner perceptions of a video recording activity for patient consultation training in a pharmacist-led primary care clinic located in an academic institution. Innov Pharm. Jun 29, 2021;12(3):3. [CrossRef]
    33. Bethea DP, Smith N, Allison LK, et al. Live standardized patient scenario improves attitudes toward and readiness for interprofessional education in occupational therapy and physical therapy students. J Allied Health. 2019;48(2):81-87. [Medline]
    34. Botelho M. The communal consultation: video-recorded student consultations. Med Educ. May 2016;50(5):573-574. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Bowles K, Sehgal HS, Santelmann L, Pham EP, Kohli R. Dental student to patient communication analysis: a pilot study. Health Commun. Jan 2020;35(1):10-17. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Chan LK, Patil NG, Chen JY, Lam JCM, Lau CS, Ip MSM. Advantages of video trigger in problem-based learning. Med Teach. 2010;32(9):760-765. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Chi DL, Pickrell JE, Riedy CA. Student learning outcomes associated with video vs. paper cases in a public health dentistry course. J Dent Educ. Jan 2014;78(1):24-30. [Medline]
    38. Courteille O, Josephson A, Larsson LO. Interpersonal behaviors and socioemotional interaction of medical students in a virtual clinical encounter. BMC Med Educ. Apr 1, 2014;14:64. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Davies BR, Leung AN, Dunne SM, Dillon J, Blum IR. Bespoke video vignettes – an approach to enhancing reflective learning developed by dental undergraduates and their clinical teachers. Eur J Dental Educ. Feb 2017;21(1):33-36. [CrossRef]
    40. Edrees HY, Ohlin J, Ahlquist M, Tessma MK, Zary N. Patient demonstration videos in predoctoral endodontic education: aspects perceived as beneficial by students. J Dent Educ. Aug 2015;79(8):928-933. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Farnan JM, O’Leary KJ, Didwania A, et al. Promoting professionalism via a video-based educational workshop for academic hospitalists and housestaff. J Hosp Med. Jul 2013;8(7):386-389. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Fero LJ, O’Donnell JM, Zullo TG, et al. Critical thinking skills in nursing students: comparison of simulation-based performance with metrics. J Adv Nurs. Oct 2010;66(10):2182-2193. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Flood M, Ryan B, Conroy A, Strawbridge J. Video killed the...the development of video-based case studies for more patient-centred, authentic assessment of postgraduate pharmacy students. In: EDULEARN19 Proceedings. IATED Digital Library; 2019:7419. [CrossRef]
    44. Forbes H, Bucknall TK, Hutchinson AM. Piloting the feasibility of head-mounted video technology to augment student feedback during simulated clinical decision-making: an observational design pilot study. Nurse Educ Today. Apr 2016;39:116-121. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Giles AK, Carson NE, Breland HL, Coker-Bolt P, Bowman PJ. Use of simulated patients and reflective video analysis to assess occupational therapy students’ preparedness for fieldwork. Am J Occup Ther. 2014;68(Suppl 2):S57-S66. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Hafen M, Drake AAS, Rush BR, Nelson SC. Using authentic client interactions in communication skills training: predictors of proficiency. J Vet Med Educ. 2013;40(4):318-326. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Hafen M Jr, Siqueira Drake AA, Rush BR, Sibley DS. Engaging students: using video clips of authentic client interactions in pre-clinical veterinary medical education. J Vet Med Educ. 2015;42(3):252-258. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Lundeborg Hammarström I, Samuelsson C. Speech and language interventions for stroke-induced aphasia. J Interact Res Commun Disord. Mar 30, 2021;10(1):47-66. [CrossRef]
    49. Hammoud MM, Morgan HK, Edwards ME, Lyon JA, White C. Is video review of patient encounters an effective tool for medical student learning? A review of the literature. Adv Med Educ Pract. Mar 2012;3:19-30. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Henry SG, Fetters MD. Video elicitation interviews: a qualitative research method for investigating physician-patient interactions. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(2):118-125. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Janda MS, Mattheos N, Nattestad A, et al. Simulation of patient encounters using a virtual patient in periodontology instruction of dental students: design, usability, and learning effect in history‐taking skills. Eur J Dent Educ. Aug 2004;8(3):111-119. [CrossRef]
    52. Ju M, Hwang J, Kim J, Kang J. The effect of recorded video monitoring on students’ self reflection of patient‐physician interaction. Korean Med Educ Rev. Jun 2017;19(2):83-89. [CrossRef]
    53. Kalish R, Dawiskiba M, Sung Y, Blanco M. Raising medical student awareness of compassionate care through reflection of annotated videotapes of clinical encounters. Educ Health. 2011;24(3):490. [CrossRef]
    54. Kalwitzki M. Self‐reported changes in clinical behaviour by undergraduate dental students after video‐based teaching in paediatric dentistry. Eur J Dental Education. Aug 2005;9(3):108-114. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/16000579/9/3 [CrossRef]
    55. Kamin C, O’Sullivan P, Deterding R, Younger M. A comparison of critical thinking in groups of third-year medical students in text, video, and virtual PBL case modalities. Acad Med. Feb 2003;78(2):204-211. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Lee WS, Hwang JY, Lim JE, Suh SY, Park KH, Sung NJ. The effect of videotaping students’ interviews with patients for interview skill education. Korean J Fam Med. Mar 2013;34(2):90-97. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Leeds FS, Sommer EM, Andrasik WJ, Atwa KM, Crawford TN. A patient-narrative video approach to teaching fibromyalgia. J Med Educ Curric Dev. Jul 31, 2020;7. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. De Leng B, Dolmans D, Van de Wiel M, Muijtjens A, Van Der Vleuten C. How video cases should be used as authentic stimuli in problem‐based medical education. Med Educ. Feb 2007;41(2):181-188. [CrossRef]
    59. Leone TA, Rich W, Finer NN. Educational perspectives: addressing the complexities of medical education with video. Neoreviews. Dec 1, 2006;7(12):e597-e601. [CrossRef]
    60. Lewis A, Moore C, Nang C. Using video of student-client interactions to engage students in reflection and peer review. J Univ Teach Learn Pract. Sep 1, 2015;12(4). [CrossRef]
    61. Malon M, Cortes D, Greisen GO. Medical students’ assessment of pediatric patients – teaching and evaluation using video cases. BMC Med Educ. Nov 13, 2014;14:241. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. McQueen S, McKinnon V, VanderBeek L, McCarthy C, Sonnadara R. Video-based assessment in surgical education: a scoping review. J Surg Educ. 2019;76(6):1645-1654. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Miller CJ, Metz MJ. Can clinical scenario videos improve dental students’ perceptions of the basic sciences and ability to apply content knowledge? J Dent Educ. Dec 2015;79(12):1452-1460. [Medline]
    64. Minardi HA, Ritter S. Recording skills practice on videotape can enhance learning – a comparative study between nurse lecturers and nursing students. J Adv Nurs. Jun 1999;29(6):1318-1325. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Muench J, Sanchez D, Garvin R. A review of video review: new processes for the 21st century. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2013;45(4):413-422. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Murphy LF, Stav WB. The impact of online video cases on clinical reasoning in occupational therapy education: a quantitative analysis. Open J Occup Ther. Jul 2018;6(3). [CrossRef]
    67. Nilsen S, Baerheim A. Feedback on video recorded consultations in medical teaching: why students loathe and love it – a focus-group based qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. Jul 19, 2005;5:28. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Nissen K, Chipchase L, Conroy T, Farrer O. The impact of using an authentic patient video on health professional students’ attitudes toward interprofessional and person-centered care. J Interprof Care. 2024;38(4):722-728. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Noverati N, R Naro G, J Fischer R, M Thompson B. Using video and virtual patients in problem-based learning: a scoping review. Med Sci Educ. Dec 2020;30(4):1685-1691. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Nunohara K, Imafuku R, Saiki T, et al. How does video case-based learning influence clinical decision-making by midwifery students? An exploratory study. BMC Med Educ. Mar 6, 2020;20(1):67. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Nyström A, Pålsson Y, Hofsten A, Häggström E. Nursing students’ experiences of being video-recorded during examination in a fictive emergency care situation. Int J Nurs Pract. Oct 2014;20(5):540-548. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Omar H, Archer L, Schroeder K, Robinson B. Web‐based standardized patient encounters for preclinical dental students during COVID‐19 pandemic. J Dent Educ. Jun 2021;85(S1):1167-1169. [CrossRef]
    73. Oosthuizen H. Speech therapy students’ perceptions of authentic video cases in a theory module on child language disorders. S Afr J Commun Disord. Jan 22, 2019;66(1):e1-e5. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. Parlak Özer Z, Balaman U. An investigation into student dietitians’ professional development through video-mediated communication training on patient counselling. Health Commun. Apr 2025;40(4):574-584. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Quinn S, Herron D, Menzies R, et al. The video interaction guidance approach applied to teaching communication skills in dentistry. Eur J Dent Educ. May 2016;20(2):94-101. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Raja K. Use of videos as a medium of clinical teaching in undergraduate physiotherapy students in India – a randomized single blinded controlled pilot study. Indian J Physiother Occup Ther. 2008;2(2):15-19. URL: https://indianjournals.com/article/ijpot-2-2-004 [Accessed 2026-06-19]
    77. Reher V, Rehbein G, Reher P, et al. Integrating video recording and self-reflection to enhance communication skills training for dental students. In: Van Toi V, Le T, Ngo H, Nguyen TH, editors. 7th International Conference on the Development of Biomedical Engineering in Vietnam (BME7). Springer; 2020:715-719. [CrossRef]
    78. Roberts JK, Sullivan M, Atwater S, et al. Use of virtual interactive patient encounters to prepare first-year medical students for clinical practice. Acad Med. Oct 1, 2023;98(10):1146-1153. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    79. Rodríguez-Bailón M, Fernández-Solano AJ, Merchán-Baeza JA, Vidaña-Moya L. From clinical practice to the classroom. Advantages and disadvantages of video and paper cases on the motivation and clinical reasoning of occupational therapy students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Sep 14, 2021;18(18):9671. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. Roland D, Balslev T. Use of patient video cases in medical education. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. Aug 2015;100(4):210-214. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Basu Roy R, McMahon GT. Video-based cases disrupt deep critical thinking in problem-based learning. Med Educ. Apr 2012;46(4):426-435. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    82. Sanders C, Kleinert HL, Boyd SE, Herren C, Theiss L, Mink J. Virtual patient instruction for dental students: can it improve dental care access for persons with special needs? Spec Care Dentist. 2008;28(5):205-213. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    83. Sanderson TR, Kearney RC, Kissell D, Salisbury J. Evaluating student self-assessment through video-recorded patient simulations. J Dent Hyg. Aug 2016;90(4):257-262. [Medline]
    84. Scheidt PC, Lazoritz S, Ebbeling WL, Figelman AR, Moessner HF, Singer JE. Evaluation of system providing feedback to students on videotaped patient encounters. J Med Educ. Jul 1986;61(7):585-590. [CrossRef]
    85. Schwartz B, Bohay R. Can patients help teach professionalism and empathy to dental students? Adding patient videos to a lecture course. J Dent Educ. Feb 2012;76(2):174-184. [Medline]
    86. Temple KL, Giles AK. Using a video case study as a learning tool to increase OT student confidence before fieldwork. Am J Occup Ther. Jul 1, 2022;76(Suppl 1). [CrossRef]
    87. Terasaki MRT, Morgan CO, Elias L. Medical student interactions with cancer patients: evaluation with videotaped interviews. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1984;12(1):38-42. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    88. Thomas RM, Moore LP, Urquhart BB, et al. Use of simulated telenursing with standardized patients to enhance prelicensure nursing education. Nurse Educ. 2023;48(6):E191-E195. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    89. Tully J, Dameff C, Kaib S, Moffitt M. Recording medical students’ encounters with standardized patients using Google Glass: providing end-of-life clinical education. Acad Med. Mar 2015;90(3):314-316. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    90. Vessey JA, Huss K. Using standardized patients in advanced practice nursing education. J Prof Nurs. 2002;18(1):29-35. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    91. White JG, Krüger C, Snyman WD. Development and implementation of communication skills in dentistry: an example from South Africa. Eur J Dent Educ. Feb 2008;12(1):29-34. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    92. Yoon BY, Choi I, Choi S, et al. Using standardized patients versus video cases for representing clinical problems in problem-based learning. Korean J Med Educ. Jun 2016;28(2):169-178. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    93. Zahl DA, Schrader SM, Edwards PC. Student perspectives on using egocentric video recorded by smart glasses to assess communicative and clinical skills with standardised patients. Eur J Dent Educ. May 2018;22(2):73-79. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    94. Hafen M, Rush BR, Nelson SC. Utilizing filmed authentic student-client interactions as a communication teaching tool. J Vet Med Educ. 2009;36(4):429-435. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    95. Huang A, Ryan A, Bearman M, Molloy E. The influence of clinical practice video on learning conversations in postgraduate medical education: a scoping review. FoHPE. 2024;25(3):26-43. [CrossRef]
    96. van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT. Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes. Med Educ. Mar 2005;39(3):309-317. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    97. Yardley S, Teunissen PW, Dornan T. Experiential learning: transforming theory into practice. Med Teach. 2012;34(2):161-164. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    98. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory. In: Van Lange PAM, Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET, editors. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. SAGE Publications; 2012:349-374. [CrossRef]
    99. Choi JJ, Gribben J, Lin M, Abramson EL, Aizer J. Using an experiential learning model to teach clinical reasoning theory and cognitive bias: an evaluation of a first-year medical student curriculum. Med Educ Online. Dec 2023;28(1):2153782. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    100. Kinney A, Nordon-Craft A, Kardong-Edgren S, Kumar A, Thompson A. Digital recordings of a clinical encounter facilitate reflection in physical therapy students and clinicians. Front Med. 2025;11(11). [CrossRef]
    101. Seif GA, Brown D. Video-recorded simulated patient interactions: can they help develop clinical and communication skills in today’s learning environment? J Allied Health. 2013;42(2):e37-e44. [Medline]
    102. Niederriter J, Hovland C, Hazelett S, et al. Using the constructivist/active learning theoretical framework to develop and test a simulation-based interprofessional geriatric training curriculum. J Interprof Educ Pract. Jun 2020;19(11):100322. [CrossRef]
    103. Mayer RE. Multimedia Learning. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; 2009. [CrossRef]
    104. van Merriënboer JJG, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Med Educ. Jan 2010;44(1):85-93. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    105. Wald HS. Professional identity (trans)formation in medical education: reflection, relationship, resilience. Acad Med. Jun 2015;90(6):701-706. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    106. Sandars J. The use of reflection in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 44. Med Teach. Aug 2009;31(8):685-695. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    107. Cruess SL, Cruess SR, Boudreau JD, Snell L, Steinert Y. Reframing medical education to support professional identity formation. Acad Med. Nov 2014;89(11):1446-1451. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    108. Field JC, Cowpe JG, Walmsley AD. The Graduating European Dentist: a new undergraduate curriculum framework. Eur J Dent Educ. Dec 2017;21 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):2-10. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    109. Field J, Vital S, Dixon J, Murphy D, Davies J. The Graduating European Dentist Curriculum framework: a 7‐year review. Eur J Dent Educ. Feb 2025;29(1):155-161. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    110. Hodges BD, Ginsburg S, Cruess R, et al. Assessment of professionalism: recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach. 2011;33(5):354-363. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    BOSATS: Bariatric Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill
    CADTH: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
    ERIC: Education Resources Information Center
    HIPAA: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
    ICCAS: Interprofessional Collaborative Competencies Attainment Survey
    OSATS: Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill
    PCI: patient-clinician interaction
    PICO: population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes
    PRISMA-ScR: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews

    Edited by Tiffany Leung; submitted 19.Dec.2024; peer-reviewed by Polina Shilo, Tehmina Gladman; final revised version received 26.Jan.2026; accepted 31.Jan.2026; published 13.Jul.2026.

    Copyright

    © Mariana Morgado, Yago Leira, Tiago Leitão, José João Mendes, Luís Proença. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 13.Jul.2026.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Medical Education, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mededu.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.