Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37851495›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Health Care Trainees' and Professionals' Perceptions of ChatGPT in Improving Medical Knowledge Training: Rapid Survey Study.

Je-Ming Hu, Feng-Cheng Liu, Chi-Ming Chu, Yu-Tien Chang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  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

4 authors.

Je-Ming HuDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tri-service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-7377-0984
Feng-Cheng LiuDivision of Rheumatology/Immunology and Allergy, Department of Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-1291-8946
Chi-Ming ChuGraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-8563-1378
Yu-Tien ChangSchool of Public Health, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-1801-7041

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChatGPT is a powerful pretrained large language model. It has both demonstrated potential and raised concerns related to knowledge translation and knowledge transfer. To apply and improve knowledge transfer in the real world, it is essential to assess the perceptions and acceptance of the users of ChatGPT-assisted training.

objectiveWe aimed to investigate the perceptions of health care trainees and professionals on ChatGPT-assisted training, using biomedical informatics as an example.

methodsWe used purposeful sampling to include all health care undergraduate trainees and graduate professionals (n=195) from January to May 2023 in the School of Public Health at the National Defense Medical Center in Taiwan. Subjects were asked to watch a 2-minute video introducing 5 scenarios about ChatGPT-assisted training in biomedical informatics and then answer a self-designed online (web- and mobile-based) questionnaire according to the Kirkpatrick model. The survey responses were used to develop 4 constructs: "perceived knowledge acquisition," "perceived training motivation," "perceived training satisfaction," and "perceived training effectiveness." The study used structural equation modeling (SEM) to evaluate and test the structural model and hypotheses.

resultsThe online questionnaire response rate was 152 of 195 (78%); 88 of 152 participants (58%) were undergraduate trainees and 90 of 152 participants (59%) were women. The ages ranged from 18 to 53 years (mean 23.3, SD 6.0 years). There was no statistical difference in perceptions of training evaluation between men and women. Most participants were enthusiastic about the ChatGPT-assisted training, while the graduate professionals were more enthusiastic than undergraduate trainees. Nevertheless, some concerns were raised about potential cheating on training assessment. The average scores for knowledge acquisition, training motivation, training satisfaction, and training effectiveness were 3.84 (SD 0.80), 3.76 (SD 0.93), 3.75 (SD 0.87), and 3.72 (SD 0.91), respectively (Likert scale 1-5: strongly disagree to strongly agree). Knowledge acquisition had the highest score and training effectiveness the lowest. In the SEM results, training effectiveness was influenced predominantly by knowledge acquisition and partially met the hypotheses in the research framework. Knowledge acquisition had a direct effect on training effectiveness, training satisfaction, and training motivation, with β coefficients of .80, .87, and .97, respectively (all P<.001).

conclusionsMost health care trainees and professionals perceived ChatGPT-assisted training as an aid in knowledge transfer. However, to improve training effectiveness, it should be combined with empirical experts for proper guidance and dual interaction. In a future study, we recommend using a larger sample size for evaluation of internet-connected large language models in medical knowledge transfer.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAttitude of Health PersonnelStudentsAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMedicineMiddle AgedPerceptionSurveys and QuestionnairesTaiwanYoung AdultChatGPTinternet surveylarge language modelmedicineperception evaluationSEMstructural equation modeling

Identifiers

PMID37851495
PMCPMC10620632

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.