ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2024
Exploring Jordanian medical students' perceptions and concerns about ChatGPT in medical education: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Medical Students' Attitudes, Perceptions, and Self-Reported Familiarity With AI in Health Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Medical Student Experiences With ChatGPT: National Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Mapping applications and evaluations of LLM-enabled AI chatbots for health purposes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Perception and Impact of AI on Education Journey of Medical Students and Interns in Western Region, KSA: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT into medical education is expanding, offering benefits such as efficient information synthesis. However, concerns about the accuracy, reliability, and proper use of these tools persist. Understanding medical students' perceptions of ChatGPT is crucial for optimising its use in educational settings. Objectives: To evaluate how medical students perceive ChatGPT for educational purposes and to assess its perceived advantages and disadvantages. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out using a questionnaire with five main domains to explore Jordanian medical students' perceptions, practices, and concerns regarding the ChatGPT. This study was conducted from May to July, 2023, and the data were collected using the convenience sampling technique through Google Forms shared within medical students' Facebook groups. Descriptive statistics summarised participant demographics, while logistic regression identified factors influencing ChatGPT usage. Variables with a Results: Nearly two-thirds (N = 136, 61.5%) claimed to have knowledge of AI but not in clinical settings. Most participants (88.5%, N = 216) were aware of ChatGPT, with 86.9% (N = 212) agreeing that 'Medical students can benefit from using ChatGPT.' Additionally, 83.2% (N = 203) felt that 'ChatGPT helps students quickly and easily summarize complex information.' Conversely, 78.3% (N = 191) expressed concerns about ChatGPT's potential inaccuracies, with accuracy and reliability cited as primary concerns. Multiple logistic regression showed that younger students (OR = 0.902, Conclusion: Although the use of the ChatGPT could be more beneficial for aiding students in developing medical knowledge, evidence-based academic regulations should guide its use. Future research should be conducted to examine the enablers and barriers to ChatGPT use in medical education.
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.