Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40533396›Full record

SynthesisMedical education2025

The impact of generative AI on health professional education: A systematic review in the context of student learning.

Thai Duong Pham, Nilushi Karunaratne, Betty Exintaris, Danny Liu, Travis Lay, Elizabeth Yuriev, Angelina Lim

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

7 authors.

Thai Duong PhamFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Nilushi KarunaratneFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Betty ExintarisFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Danny LiuOffice of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education), The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Travis LayFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Elizabeth YurievFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Angelina LimFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8219-1191

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenerative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly integrated into health professions education (HPE), offering new opportunities for student learning. However, current research lacks a comprehensive understanding of how HPE students actually use GenAI in practice. Laurillard's Conversational Framework outlines six learning types-acquisition, inquiry, practice, production, discussion and collaboration-commonly used to categorise learning activities supported by conventional and digital technologies. Gaining insight into how GenAI aligns with these six learning types could assist HPE academics in integrating it more thoughtfully and effectively into teaching and learning. PURPOSE: This systematic review investigates how HPE students utilise GenAI and examines how these uses align with Laurillard's six learning types compared to conventional and digital technologies. MATERIAL AND

methodsA systematic review searching five major databases-ERIC, Education Database, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and Scopus including articles on HPE students' use of GenAI until 15th September 2024. Studies were included if they were conducted within formal HPE training programs in HPE and specifically mentioned how students interact with GenAI. Data were mapped to the six learning modes of the Laurillard's Framework. Study quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).

resultsThirty-three studies met inclusion criteria. GenAI supported learning most frequently in practice (73%), inquiry (70%), production (67%) and acquisition (55%). These studies highlight GenAI's varied educational applications, from clarifying complex concepts to simulating clinical scenarios and generating practice materials. Discussion and collaboration were less represented (12% each), suggesting a shift toward more individualised learning with GenAI. The findings highlight benefits such as efficiency and accessibility, alongside concerns about critical thinking, academic integrity and reduced peer interaction.

conclusionThis review has provided insights into HPE students' learning aligned with Laurillard's existing six learning types. Although GenAI supports personalised and self-directed learning, its role in collaborative modes is under-explored.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEducation, MedicalHealth OccupationsLearningHumansStudents, Health Occupations

Identifiers

PMID40533396
PMCPMC12686775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.