ArticleDigital health
ChatGPT utilization within the building blocks of the healthcare services: A mixed-methods study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the performance of ChatGPT-5, Gemini 3, Copilot, Perplexity, and medical students in answering neurology questions: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review of the Outcomes of Utilization of Artificial Intelligence Within the Healthcare Systems of the Middle East: A Thematic Analysis of Findings.Health science reports · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek R1 in addressing hyperuricemia-related inquiries.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: ChatGPT, as an AI tool, has been introduced in healthcare for various purposes. The objective of the study was to investigate the principal benefits of ChatGPT utilization in healthcare services and to identify potential domains for its expansion within the building blocks of the healthcare industry. Methods: A comprehensive three-phase study was conducted employing mixed methods. The initial phase comprised a systematic review and thematic analysis of the data. In the subsequent phases, a questionnaire, developed based on the findings from the first phase, was distributed to a sample of eight experts. The objective was to prioritize the benefits and potential expansion domains of ChatGPT in healthcare building blocks, utilizing gray SWARA (Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis) and gray MABAC (Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison), respectively. Results: The systematic review yielded 74 studies. A thematic analysis of the data from these studies identified 11 unique themes. In the second phase, employing the gray SWARA method, clinical decision-making (weight: 0.135), medical diagnosis (weight: 0.098), medical procedures (weight: 0.070), and patient-centered care (weight: 0.053) emerged as the most significant benefit of ChatGPT in the healthcare sector. Subsequently, it was determined that ChatGPT demonstrated the highest level of usefulness in the information and infrastructure, information and communication technologies blocks. Conclusion: The study concluded that, despite the significant benefits of ChatGPT in the clinical domains of healthcare, it exhibits a more pronounced potential for growth within the informational domains of the healthcare industry's building blocks, rather than within the domains of intervention and clinical services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.