Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37651380›Full record

ReviewPloS one2023

Western Australian medical students' attitudes towards artificial intelligence in healthcare.

Jonathon Stewart, Juan Lu, Nestor Gahungu, Adrian Goudie, P Gerry Fegan, Mohammed Bennamoun, Peter Sprivulis, Girish Dwivedi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jonathon StewartSchool of Medicine, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7322-0106
Juan LuHarry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.
Nestor GahunguDepartment of Cardiology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.
Adrian GoudieDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0176-1533
P Gerry FeganDepartment of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.
Mohammed BennamounDepartment of Computer Science and Software Engineering, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6603-3257
Peter SprivulisWestern Australia Department of Health, East Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Girish DwivediSchool of Medicine, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0717-740X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSurveys conducted internationally have found widespread interest in artificial intelligence (AI) amongst medical students. No similar surveys have been conducted in Western Australia (WA) and it is not known how medical students in WA feel about the use of AI in healthcare or their understanding of AI. We aim to assess WA medical students' attitudes towards AI in general, AI in healthcare, and the inclusion of AI education in the medical curriculum.

methodsA digital survey instrument was developed based on a review of available literature and consultation with subject matter experts. The survey was piloted with a group of medical students and refined based on their feedback. We then sent this anonymous digital survey to all medical students in WA (approximately 1539 students). Responses were open from the 7th of September 2021 to the 7th of November 2021. Students' categorical responses were qualitatively analysed, and free text comments from the survey were qualitatively analysed using open coding techniques.

resultsOverall, 134 students answered one or more questions (8.9% response rate). The majority of students (82.0%) were 20-29 years old, studying medicine as a postgraduate degree (77.6%), and had started clinical rotations (62.7%). Students were interested in AI (82.6%), self-reported having a basic understanding of AI (84.8%), but few agreed that they had an understanding of the basic computational principles of AI (33.3%) or the limitations of AI (46.2%). Most students (87.5%) had not received teaching in AI. The majority of students (58.6%) agreed that AI should be part of medical training and most (72.7%) wanted more teaching focusing on AI in medicine. Medical students appeared optimistic regarding the role of AI in medicine, with most (74.4%) agreeing with the statement that AI will improve medicine in general. The majority (56.6%) of medical students were not concerned about the impact of AI on their job security as a doctor. Students selected radiology (72.6%), pathology (58.2%), and medical administration (44.8%) as the specialties most likely to be impacted by AI, and psychiatry (61.2%), palliative care (48.5%), and obstetrics and gynaecology (41.0%) as the specialties least likely to be impacted by AI. Qualitative analysis of free text comments identified the use of AI as a tool, and that doctors will not be replaced as common themes.

conclusionMedical students in WA appear to be interested in AI. However, they have not received education about AI and do not feel they understand its basic computational principles or limitations. AI appears to be a current deficit in the medical curriculum in WA, and most students surveyed were supportive of its introduction. These results are consistent with previous surveys conducted internationally.

Indexed as

ObstetricsStudents, MedicalAdultArtificial IntelligenceAttitudeAustraliaDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansPregnancyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID37651380
PMCPMC10470885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.