Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39917060›Full record

ArticleDigital health

A mixed methods crossover randomized controlled trial exploring the experiences, perceptions, and usability of artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) in health sciences education.

Mirella Veras, Joseph-Omer Dyer, Holly Shannon, Bryce J M Bogie, Morgan Ronney, Harmehr Sekhon, Derek Rutherford, Paulo Goberlânio Barros Silva, Dahlia Kairy

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

Mirella VerasDepartment of Physical Therapy, College of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4124-1543
Joseph-Omer DyerÉcole de Réadaptation, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Holly ShannonDepartment of Neuroscience, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Bryce J M BogieDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Morgan RonneyTeaching and Learning Services, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5261-5929
Harmehr SekhonDepartment of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, McGill University, and St Mary's Research Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Derek RutherfordSchool of Physiotherapy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Paulo Goberlânio Barros SilvaCentro Universitário Christus, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil.
Dahlia KairyDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6872-6607

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) integrated programs such as Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformers (ChatGPT) are becoming more widespread in educational settings, with mounting ethical and reliability concerns regarding its usage. This paper explores the experiences, perceptions, and usability of ChatGPT in undergraduate health sciences students. Methods: Twenty-seven students at Carleton University (Canada) were enrolled in a crossover randomized controlled trial study from a Health Sciences course during the Fall 2023 academic term. The intervention condition involved the use of ChatGPT-3.5, whereas the control condition involved using conventional web-based tools. Technology usability was compared between ChatGPT-3.5 and the traditional tools using questionnaires. Focus group discussions were conducted with seven students to further elaborate on student perceptions and experiences. Reflexive thematic analysis was employed to identify themes from the focus group data. Results: Easiness of learnability for personal use and a perception of quick learnability towards ChatGPT-3.5 were significantly higher, compared to conventional online tools from the Systems Usability Scale. Qualitative results highlighted strong benefits of ChatGPT-3.5, such as being a tool for increased overall productivity and brainstorming. However, students identified challenges associated with reliability and accuracy, and concerns about academic integrity. Conclusions: Despite the benefits and positive usability of ChatGPT-3.5 identified by students, an explicit need for the development of policies, procedures and regulations remains. An established framework of best practices for the usage of AI within health science education is necessary. This will ensure accountability of users and lead to a more effective integration of AI technologies into academic settings.

Indexed as

AIartificial intelligenceChatGPTcrossover RCTeducationhealth scienceslearning outcomesperceptionsrandomized controlled trialusability

Identifiers

PMID39917060
PMCPMC11800248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.