Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39346584›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2024

Perceptions of ChatGPT in healthcare: usefulness, trust, and risk.

Su-Yen Chen, H Y Kuo, Shu-Hao Chang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Diagnostic accuracy and citation integrity of four large language models on otolaryngology vignettes.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    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

3 authors.

Su-Yen ChenInstitute of Learning Sciences and Technologies, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
H Y KuoInstitute of Learning Sciences and Technologies, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Shu-Hao ChangDepartment of Sport Management, College of Health and Human Performance, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This study explores the perceptions of ChatGPT in healthcare settings in Taiwan, focusing on its usefulness, trust, and associated risks. As AI technologies like ChatGPT increasingly influence various sectors, their potential in public health education, promotion, medical education, and clinical practice is significant but not without challenges. The study aims to assess how individuals with and without healthcare-related education perceive and adopt ChatGPT, contributing to a deeper understanding of AI's role in enhancing public health outcomes. Methods: An online survey was conducted among 659 university and graduate students, all of whom had prior experience using ChatGPT. The survey measured perceptions of ChatGPT's ease of use, novelty, usefulness, trust, and risk, particularly within clinical practice, medical education, and research settings. Multiple linear regression models were used to analyze how these factors influence perception in healthcare applications, comparing responses between healthcare majors and non-healthcare majors. Results: The study revealed that both healthcare and non-healthcare majors find ChatGPT more useful in medical education and research than in clinical practice. Regression analysis revealed that for healthcare majors, general trust is crucial for ChatGPT's adoption in clinical practice and influences its use in medical education and research. For non-healthcare majors, novelty, perceived general usefulness, and trust are key predictors. Interestingly, while healthcare majors were cautious about ease of use, fearing it might increase risk, non-healthcare majors associated increased complexity with greater trust. Conclusion: This study highlights the varying expectations between healthcare and non-healthcare majors regarding ChatGPT's role in healthcare. The findings suggest the need for AI applications to be tailored to address specific user needs, particularly in clinical practice, where trust and reliability are paramount. Additionally, the potential of AI tools like ChatGPT to contribute to public health education and promotion is significant, as these technologies can enhance health literacy and encourage behavior change. These insights can inform future healthcare practices and policies by guiding the thoughtful and effective integration of AI tools like ChatGPT, ensuring they complement clinical judgment, enhance educational outcomes, support research integrity, and ultimately contribute to improved public health outcomes.

Indexed as

TrustAdultDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMalePerceptionSurveys and QuestionnairesTaiwanYoung AdultChatGPTclinical practicehealthcaremedical educationmedical researchTaiwantechnology acceptance modeluses and gratifications theory

Identifiers

PMID39346584
PMCPMC11436320

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.