ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Development of a questionnaire for assessing the use of ChatGPT in primary and secondary disease prevention.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many individuals seek health-related guidance through ChatGPT OpenAI (San Francisco, CA, USA), due to its convenience and perceived reliability, often in place of, or as a supplement to, professional medical advice. This raises concerns about the accuracy of information provided and the potential for misinterpretation. On the other hand, ChatGPT offers a promising avenue for complementing traditional health prevention processes. Aims: This study aimed to develop and validate self-completion questionnaire among adults that evaluates the use of role of ChatGPT in primary and secondary health prevention, to explore the extent to which users utilize ChatGPT for disease prevention and health maintenance. Method: Questionnaire items were derived from a systematic literature review and comprised demographics, internet-use metrics, and validated items from the Brief Health Literacy Screening Tool. ChatGPT usage was structured into three domains: knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Test-retest reliability was quantified by Kendall's tau, and internal consistency by Cronbach's Alpha. Results: During the validation phase, the questionnaire was administered to a sample of 22 participants (16 female, six male), each of whom completed it twice, resulting in a total of 44 responses. Knowledge items demonstrated significant test-retest stability (Kendall's τ, Discussion: Our reliability analysis demonstrated that the items of the instrument exhibit good internal consistency, with Cronbach's Alpha values exceeding the commonly accepted threshold for exploratory research. Moreover, the questionnaire's design is inherently model-independent, allowing for its straightforward adaptation to assess user interactions with a variety of conversational artificial intelligence systems beyond ChatGPT. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study presents an initially validated questionnaire that captures how individuals employ ChatGPT for both primary and secondary disease prevention. The tool addresses key dimensions of artificial intelligence use and enables meaningful comparisons across populations with different social and educational backgrounds.
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.