ArticleBMC medical education2025
Exploring medical students' intention to use of ChatGPT from a programming course: a grounded theory study in China.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of AI-Generated Content in Medical Education: Systematic Review of the Impact on Critical Thinking Abilities of Medical Students.JMIR medical education · 2026Pooled it
- The Influencing Factors of Medical Postgraduates' Usage Intention Toward Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content Tools in Academic Research: Qualitative Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Personality, usage, and perceptions of AI in medical education: evidence from senior pre-clinical students in China.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Mechanism for credibility assessment of online health information by medical students in the digital-intelligent age-a grounded theory study in China.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Enhancing ophthalmology students' awareness of retinitis pigmentosa: assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted teaching of rare diseases-a quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn interdisciplinary general education courses, medical students face the daunting challenge of learning programming due to academic pressure, cognitive biases, and differences in thinking patterns. ChatGPT provides an effective way for people to acquire knowledge, improve learning efficiency, and quality.
objectiveTo explore whether medical students can be assisted in learning programming with the help of ChatGPT, it is necessary to investigate their experience and perception of using ChatGPT, and to study which factors influence their willingness to use ChatGPT.
methodsDrawing on the grounded theory research paradigm, this paper constructs a research model of the influencing factors of ChatGPT usage willingness for medical students in programming courses through the analysis of interview data from 30 undergraduate medical students. It analyzes and discusses the cognition and influencing factors of medical students' willingness to use ChatGPT in programming learning.
resultsThe willingness to use ChatGPT in programming learning is divided into three types based on the students' subjective degree of use: active use, neutral use, and negative use. It is also found that individual factors, technical factors, information factors, and environmental factors are four important dimensions affecting the willingness to use ChatGPT.
conclusionsBased on the analysis of influencing factors, strategies and suggestions such as preventing risks and focusing on ethical education, cultivating critical thinking and establishing a case library, and personalized teaching to enhance core literacy in programming are proposed.
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.