Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39833868›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Health profession students' perceptions of ChatGPT in healthcare and education: insights from a mixed-methods study.

Lior Moskovich, Violetta Rozani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Bridging Borders, Bridging Barriers: Artificial Intelligence for Dental Education.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Whose Voice is it Anyway?Perspectives on medical education · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

2 authors.

Lior MoskovichFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-3235-5531
Violetta RozaniDepartment of Nursing Sciences, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The Stanley Steyer School of Health Professions, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. koifmanv@tauex.tau.ac.il.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6306-6267

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions of health profession students regarding ChatGPT use and the potential impact of integrating ChatGPT in healthcare and education.

backgroundArtificial Intelligence is increasingly utilized in medical education and clinical profession training. However, since its introduction, ChatGPT remains relatively unexplored in terms of health profession students' acceptance of its use in education and practice.

designThis study employed a mixed-methods approach, using a web-based survey.

methodsThe study involved a convenience sample recruited through various methods, including Faculty of Medicine announcements, social media, and snowball sampling, during the second semester (March to June 2023). Data were collected using a structured questionnaire with closed-ended questions and three open-ended questions. The final sample comprised 217 undergraduate health profession students, including 73 (33.6%) nursing students, 65 (30.0%) medical students, and 79 (36.4%) occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and speech therapy students.

resultsAmong the surveyed students, 86.2% were familiar with ChatGPT, with generally positive perceptions as reflected by a mean score of 4.04 (SD = 0.62) on a scale of 1 to 5. Positive feedback was particularly noted with respect to ChatGPT's role in information retrieval and summarization. The qualitative data revealed three main themes: experiences with ChatGPT, its impact on the quality of healthcare, and its integration into the curriculum. The findings highlight benefits such as serving as a convenient tool for accessing information, reducing human errors, and fostering innovative learning approaches. However, they also underscore areas of concern, including ethical considerations, challenges in fostering critical thinking, and issues related to verification. The absence of significant differences between the different fields of study indicates consistent perceptions across nursing, medicine, and other health profession students.

conclusionsOur findings underscore the necessity for continuous refinement to enhance ChatGPT's accuracy, reliability, and alignment with the diverse educational needs of health professions. These insights not only deepen our understanding of student perceptions of ChatGPT in healthcare education but also have significant implications for the future integration of AI in health profession practice. The study emphasizes the importance of a careful balance between leveraging the benefits of AI tools and addressing ethical and pedagogical concerns.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAttitude of Health PersonnelStudents, Health OccupationsAdultFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMalePerceptionStudents, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultArtificial IntelligenceChatGPTHealth Profession StudentsIntegrationMedical EducationMixed-Methods StudyPerception

Identifiers

PMID39833868
PMCPMC11748239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.