Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41481763›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Protocol for a scoping review examining the application of large language models in healthcare education and public health learning spaces.

Henry Ndukwe, Emmanuel Oloche Otukpa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Henry NdukweSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Emmanuel Oloche OtukpaHealth and Wellbeing Theme, African Population Health Research Center (APHRC), Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9370-3500

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThrough this scoping review, we aim to explore and synthesize existing knowledge and evidence on the learning approaches for incorporating LLMs into healthcare education and public health research and learning spaces. Specifically, we will attempt to investigate methods for auditing prompts for accuracy, fairness, and effectiveness; tailoring prompts to improve task-specific accuracy and utility; and exploring how end-user feedback is used to refine and optimize LLM prompts over time. This review will provide a comprehensive understanding of how LLMs are being tailored and improved in these fields, contributing to the development of evidence-based strategies for their implementation. It will also identify areas for future research and innovation.

introductionThe increasing integration of large language models (LLMs) into healthcare education and public health research and learning spaces, highlights their potential to revolutionize service delivery, decision-making, and ultimately patient care and outcomes. Despite these advancements, understanding how LLMs can be effectively tailored, audited, and refined for learning remains a critical area of inquiry. Key issues include, the accuracy of generated information, and their relevance to the medical and public health fields. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Our focus will be on studies addressing LLM applications in healthcare education and public health research and learning spaces, prompt engineering techniques, prompt auditing methods, and processes geared towards integrating user feedback. Articles that do not focus on healthcare or public health contexts and lack relevance to LLM learning approaches will be excluded.

methodsThe review is guided by the JBI methodology for scoping reviews complemented by updates from Levac et al. Databases including PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science will be searched for peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings, and grey literature published in English and French from 2015 to 2025. Data extraction will include information on study characteristics, LLM models, prompt engineering strategies, auditing methodologies, and user feedback mechanisms. We will synthesize to identify trends, gaps, and best practices in leveraging LLMs to generate baseline data for auditing prompts that optimize AI learning and education needs in the healthcare and public health sector.

Indexed as

Health EducationLanguagePublic HealthDelivery of Health CareHumansLarge Language ModelsLearningScoping Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID41481763
PMCPMC12758804

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.