Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38989834›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2024

Assessing AI Awareness and Identifying Essential Competencies: Insights From Key Stakeholders in Integrating AI Into Medical Education.

Julia-Astrid Moldt, Teresa Festl-Wietek, Wolfgang Fuhl, Susanne Zabel, Manfred Claassen, Samuel Wagner, Kay Nieselt, Anne Herrmann-Werner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. AI Competency: Current State and Challenges.JMIR medical education · 2026
    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

8 authors.

Julia-Astrid MoldtTübingen Institute for Medical Education, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2418-150X
Teresa Festl-WietekTübingen Institute for Medical Education, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1450-1757
Wolfgang FuhlInstitute for Bioinformatics and Medical Informatics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7128-298X
Susanne ZabelInstitute for Bioinformatics and Medical Informatics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3374-149X
Manfred ClaassenInstitute for Bioinformatics and Medical Informatics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4583-9083
Samuel WagnerBoard of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1808-3556
Kay NieseltInstitute for Bioinformatics and Medical Informatics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1283-7065
Anne Herrmann-WernerTübingen Institute for Medical Education, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2413-7047

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The increasing importance of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care has generated a growing need for health care professionals to possess a comprehensive understanding of AI technologies, requiring an adaptation in medical education. Objective: This paper explores stakeholder perceptions and expectations regarding AI in medicine and examines their potential impact on the medical curriculum. This study project aims to assess the AI experiences and awareness of different stakeholders and identify essential AI-related topics in medical education to define necessary competencies for students. Methods: The empirical data were collected as part of the TüKITZMed project between August 2022 and March 2023, using a semistructured qualitative interview. These interviews were administered to a diverse group of stakeholders to explore their experiences and perspectives of AI in medicine. A qualitative content analysis of the collected data was conducted using MAXQDA software. Results: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 38 participants (6 lecturers, 9 clinicians, 10 students, 6 AI experts, and 7 institutional stakeholders). The qualitative content analysis revealed 6 primary categories with a total of 24 subcategories to answer the research questions. The evaluation of the stakeholders' statements revealed several commonalities and differences regarding their understanding of AI. Crucial identified AI themes based on the main categories were as follows: possible curriculum contents, skills, and competencies; programming skills; curriculum scope; and curriculum structure. Conclusions: The analysis emphasizes integrating AI into medical curricula to ensure students' proficiency in clinical applications. Standardized AI comprehension is crucial for defining and teaching relevant content. Considering diverse perspectives in implementation is essential to comprehensively define AI in the medical context, addressing gaps and facilitating effective solutions for future AI use in medical studies. The results provide insights into potential curriculum content and structure, including aspects of AI in medicine.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCurriculumEducation, MedicalAdultAwarenessClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchStakeholder ParticipationStudents, MedicalAI in medicineartificial intelligencemedical educationmedical studentsneeds assessmentqualitative analysisqualitative approach

Identifiers

PMID38989834
PMCPMC11238140

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.