Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39177012›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2024

Integration of ChatGPT Into a Course for Medical Students: Explorative Study on Teaching Scenarios, Students' Perception, and Applications.

Anita V Thomae, Claudia M Witt, Jürgen Barth

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 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

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

3 authors.

Anita V ThomaeInstitute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7891-6121
Claudia M WittInstitute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5440-7805
Jürgen BarthInstitute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7096-7178

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Text-generating artificial intelligence (AI) such as ChatGPT offers many opportunities and challenges in medical education. Acquiring practical skills necessary for using AI in a clinical context is crucial, especially for medical education. Objective: This explorative study aimed to investigate the feasibility of integrating ChatGPT into teaching units and to evaluate the course and the importance of AI-related competencies for medical students. Since a possible application of ChatGPT in the medical field could be the generation of information for patients, we further investigated how such information is perceived by students in terms of persuasiveness and quality. Methods: ChatGPT was integrated into 3 different teaching units of a blended learning course for medical students. Using a mixed methods approach, quantitative and qualitative data were collected. As baseline data, we assessed students' characteristics, including their openness to digital innovation. The students evaluated the integration of ChatGPT into the course and shared their thoughts regarding the future of text-generating AI in medical education. The course was evaluated based on the Kirkpatrick Model, with satisfaction, learning progress, and applicable knowledge considered as key assessment levels. In ChatGPT-integrating teaching units, students evaluated videos featuring information for patients regarding their persuasiveness on treatment expectations in a self-experience experiment and critically reviewed information for patients written using ChatGPT 3.5 based on different prompts. Results: A total of 52 medical students participated in the study. The comprehensive evaluation of the course revealed elevated levels of satisfaction, learning progress, and applicability specifically in relation to the ChatGPT-integrating teaching units. Furthermore, all evaluation levels demonstrated an association with each other. Higher openness to digital innovation was associated with higher satisfaction and, to a lesser extent, with higher applicability. AI-related competencies in other courses of the medical curriculum were perceived as highly important by medical students. Qualitative analysis highlighted potential use cases of ChatGPT in teaching and learning. In ChatGPT-integrating teaching units, students rated information for patients generated using a basic ChatGPT prompt as "moderate" in terms of comprehensibility, patient safety, and the correct application of communication rules taught during the course. The students' ratings were considerably improved using an extended prompt. The same text, however, showed the smallest increase in treatment expectations when compared with information provided by humans (patient, clinician, and expert) via videos. Conclusions: This study offers valuable insights into integrating the development of AI competencies into a blended learning course. Integration of ChatGPT enhanced learning experiences for medical students.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCurriculumStudents, MedicalAdultEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMalePerceptionSurveys and QuestionnairesTeachingAIartificial intelligenceblended learningChatGPTcritical appraisaldigital skillsevaluationinformation for patientsmedical educationteaching

Identifiers

PMID39177012
PMCPMC11360267

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.