Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38032714›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2023

Can we use ChatGPT for Mental Health and Substance Use Education? Examining Its Quality and Potential Harms.

Sophia Spallek, Louise Birrell, Stephanie Kershaw, Emma Krogh Devine, Louise Thornton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Strengths and Potential Pitfalls of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatric Education and Practice.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sophia Spallek *The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5222-1794
Louise Birrell *The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1335-1382
Stephanie KershawThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2494-4391
Emma Krogh DevineThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8110-6445
Louise ThorntonThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7705-833X
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of generative artificial intelligence, more specifically large language models (LLMs), is proliferating, and as such, it is vital to consider both the value and potential harms of its use in medical education. Their efficiency in a variety of writing styles makes LLMs, such as ChatGPT, attractive for tailoring educational materials. However, this technology can feature biases and misinformation, which can be particularly harmful in medical education settings, such as mental health and substance use education. This viewpoint investigates if ChatGPT is sufficient for 2 common health education functions in the field of mental health and substance use: (1) answering users' direct queries and (2) aiding in the development of quality consumer educational health materials.

objectiveThis viewpoint includes a case study to provide insight into the accessibility, biases, and quality of ChatGPT's query responses and educational health materials. We aim to provide guidance for the general public and health educators wishing to utilize LLMs.

methodsWe collected real world queries from 2 large-scale mental health and substance use portals and engineered a variety of prompts to use on GPT-4 Pro with the Bing BETA internet browsing plug-in. The outputs were evaluated with tools from the Sydney Health Literacy Lab to determine the accessibility, the adherence to Mindframe communication guidelines to identify biases, and author assessments on quality, including tailoring to audiences, duty of care disclaimers, and evidence-based internet references.

resultsGPT-4's outputs had good face validity, but upon detailed analysis were substandard in comparison to expert-developed materials. Without engineered prompting, the reading level, adherence to communication guidelines, and use of evidence-based websites were poor. Therefore, all outputs still required cautious human editing and oversight.

conclusionsGPT-4 is currently not reliable enough for direct-consumer queries, but educators and researchers can use it for creating educational materials with caution. Materials created with LLMs should disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence and be evaluated on their efficacy with the target audience.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceChatGPTeducational interventiongenerative artificial intelligencehealth educationlarge language modelsmedical educationmental healthpatient education handoutpreventive health servicessubstance use

Identifiers

PMID38032714
PMCPMC10722374
OpenAlexW4388502894

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.