ArticleBMC medical education2025
Knowledge and use, perceptions of benefits and limitations of artificial intelligence chatbots among Italian physiotherapy students: a cross-sectional national study.
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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating generative AI into physiotherapy education: students' use, perceptions, and generative AI literacy following curricular adaptations: a repeated cross-sectional programme evaluation.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- Designing Self-Directed Learning Content for Medical Students: An AI-Driven Evaluation of Learning Outcomes.Cureus · 2026Article
- Conditional Acceptance and the Optimism-Knowledge Gap: A Scoping Review of Attitudes and Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare in Italy.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Health Professional Students' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence During Clinical Placements: Cross-Sectional Online Survey Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Utilization of AI Among Medical Students and Development of AI Education Platforms in Medical Institutions: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Physiotherapy students' acceptance of AI-based chatbots (including ChatGPT) in education: a multi-institutional study from Turkey.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Utilization patterns of AI chatbots among physical therapy students: A multicountry cross-sectional study.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2025Article
- Knowledge, use and perceptions of artificial intelligence Chatbots among Italian physiotherapists: an online cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Exploring the use and perceived impact of artificial intelligence in medical internship: a cross-sectional study of Palestinian doctors.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Are ChatGPT, My AI Snapchat, and Metaverse used by dental students as reliable sources of dental education?Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Article
- Accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, Copilot, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity in advising on lumbosacral radicular pain against clinical practice guidelines: cross-sectional study.Frontiers in digital health · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) Chatbots (e.g., ChatGPT, Microsoft Bing, and Google Bard) can emulate human interaction and may support physiotherapy education. Despite growing interest, physiotherapy students' perspectives remain unexplored. This study investigated Italian physiotherapy students' knowledge, use, and perception of the benefits and limitations of AI Chatbots.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted through Survey Monkey from February to June 2024. One thousand five hundred and thirty-one physiotherapy students from 10 universities were involved. The survey consisted of 23 questions investigating: (a) respondent characteristics, (b) AI Chatbot knowledge and use, (c) perceived benefits, and (d) limitations. Multiple-choice and Likert-scale-based questions were adopted. Factors associated with knowledge, use, and perceptions of AI were explored using logistic regression models.
resultsOf 589 students (38%) that completed the survey, most were male (n = 317; 53.8%) with a mean age of 22 years (SD = 3.88). Nearly all (n = 561; 95.3%) had heard of AI Chatbots, but 53.7% (n = 316) never used these tools for academic purposes. Among users, learning support was the most common purpose (n = 187; 31.8%), while only 9.9% (n = 58) declared Chatbot use during internships. Students agreed that Chatbots have limitations in performing complex tasks and may generate inaccurate results (median = 3 out of 4). However, they neither agreed nor disagreed about Chatbots' impact on academic performance, emotional intelligence, bias, and fairness (median = 2 out of 4). The students agreed to identify the risk of misinformation as a primary barrier (median = 3 out of 4). In contrast, they neither agreed nor disagreed on content validity, plagiarism, privacy, and impacts on critical thinking and creativity (median = 2 out of 4). Young students had 11% more odds of being familiar with Chatbots than older students (OR = 0.89; 95%CI 0.84-0.95; p = < 0.01), whereas female students had 39% lesser odds than males to have used Chatbots for academic purposes (OR = 0.61; 95%CI 0.44-0.85; p = < 0.01).
conclusionsWhile most students recognize the potential of AI Chatbots, they express caution about their use in academia. Targeted training for students and faculty, supported by institutional and national guidelines, could guarantee a responsible integration of these technologies into physiotherapy education.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.