Virtual education and artificial intelligence in public health and health professions training: a scoping review

Introduction: In recent decades, information and communication technology (ICT) has significantly impacted the health sector, necessitating constant evolution in the way knowledge is taught and imparted through these platforms. This implementation includes virtual simulations, virtual campuses, and chatbots, among others. However, there is uncertainty about how public health is being taught using technology. Objective: To map and describe the available evidence on virtual education and artificial intelligence-enabled tools in public health and health professions, with emphasis on their educational uses, reported benefits, implementation challenges, and implications for public health workforce development. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and the Virtual Health Library (BIREME) for studies published between 2015 and 2025. Studies addressing virtual education and/or artificial intelligence–enabled technologies relevant to public health or health professions training were included using a Population–Concept–Context framework. Results: A total of 1,266 records were identified, and 34 sources met inclusion criteria. The included evidence was geographically diverse and methodologically heterogeneous. Findings were synthesized into three overlapping analytical domains: educational uses, reported benefits, and implementation challenges, with additional contextual evidence informing digital transformation, equity, and governance considerations. Conclusions: This scoping review maps a heterogeneous body of evidence on virtual education and AI-enabled tools relevant to public health and health professions training. Reported benefits include flexibility, accessibility, learner engagement, and competency development; however, the evidence remains heterogeneous and largely descriptive or context-specific, limiting conclusions regarding comparative effectiveness and long-term educational impact. Further prospective, comparative, and longitudinal research is needed.