ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Experiences of nursing and medical students with the use of Artificial Intelligence tools such as ChatGPT in Uganda.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reflection: AI as a catalyst for change in postgraduate medical education.Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence in medical education: from knowledge assessment to clinical reasoning and professional competence.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
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
Medical and nursing students widely use ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) for their educational and learning needs. However, there are concerns of misuse and abuse of AI tools in medical education. We explored the experiences of medical students with the use of ChatGPT and other AI tools in education. This was a qualitative descriptive study to explore experiences of medical students, including students of Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Bachelor of Science in Nursing, and Bachelor of Science in Anaethesia at Busitema University in Uganda. We conducted five focus group discussions comprising 8-10 participants and 7 in-depth interviews. Participants were purposively selected across the three programs and were spread across the different years of study. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis with the aid of Atlas ti.9 software. Four themes were identified: 1) experiences of students with the use of AI; 2) perceived benefits of AI tools; 3) concerns regarding AI use; and 4) recommendations for responsible AI use. Students noted experiences with using AI as an initial source of information, while some used it as a last resort or concurrently with other traditional sources of information. AI was used for various learning needs, including preparing for tutorials and examinations, writing research proposals, and answering examination questions. Perceived benefits included enhanced learning, readily access to accurate and simplified information, saves time, provides immediate feedback, and improving scholarly writing and preparation for examinations. Students' concerns with AI use included questionable accuracy, credibility, unreliability, inherent AI limitations, and problems arising from over-reliance on AI. Modifying examinations and assessments, changing attitude towards AI use, and using other resources alongside AI were recommended to result in responsible AI use. Participants had positive perceptions about the use of AI but also expressed fears regarding its use in medical education. Structured curricula, formal policies, and guidelines are needed to adequately prepare medical students for the integration of AI in medical education.
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.