Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41836193›Full record

ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2025

AI Use or Non-use by First-Year Medical Students: A Qualitative Study of Perspectives, Usage, and Recommendations.

Jennifer Simoni, Elisa Mengual, Ines Aschenbrenner-Noriega, Clara Monforte-Martínez, Marta Pérez-Merino, Gabriela Sawczyn, Rocío Zurita, José Luis Pereira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

8 authors.

Jennifer SimoniUnidad de Educacion Medica, Universidad de Navarra Facultad de Medicina, Pamplona, Navarre, 31071, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7486-9503
Elisa MengualDept. de Patologia, Anatomia y Fisiologia, Universidad de Navarra Facultad de Medicina, Pamplona, Navarre, 31071, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0493-5167
Ines Aschenbrenner-NoriegaUnidad de Educacion Medica, Universidad de Navarra Facultad de Medicina, Pamplona, Navarre, 31071, Spain.
Clara Monforte-MartínezUnidad de Educacion Medica, Universidad de Navarra Facultad de Medicina, Pamplona, Navarre, 31071, Spain.
Marta Pérez-MerinoUnidad de Educacion Medica, Universidad de Navarra Facultad de Medicina, Pamplona, Navarre, 31071, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1805-1483
Gabriela SawczynUnidad de Educacion Medica, Universidad de Navarra Facultad de Medicina, Pamplona, Navarre, 31071, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4472-6742
Rocío ZuritaUnidad de Educacion Medica, Universidad de Navarra Facultad de Medicina, Pamplona, Navarre, 31071, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4925-6254
José Luis PereiraUnidad de Educacion Medica, Universidad de Navarra Facultad de Medicina, Pamplona, Navarre, 31071, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5974-7833

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping healthcare and medical education, with growing calls to embed it in medical curricula. However, evidence on first-year medical students, perceived benefits and limitations of AI, and views on ethics and professionalism is limited. Methods A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews to explore the experiences, attitudes, and perceptions of first-year students regarding AI. Convenience sampling yielded the participant cohort. Recruitment and analysis continued until thematic saturation was achieved. Transcripts were coded iteratively using NVivo software, and a reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken. Results Twenty participants were interviewed; 18 were AI users, to varying degrees, and two were non-users. Seven themes emerged: How AI is used; Benefits; Concerns and limitations; Ethical considerations; Advice for peers and professors; Attitudes toward and understanding of AI; and Participation in the project. AI users cited motivations like efficiency, personalization, and support. Benefits included faster access to information, organized content, and tailored explanations. Concerns included AI reliability, over-reliance, and ethical misuse, such as plagiarism. Most supported the inclusion of AI literacy in curricula for responsible, practical, and critical use of AI. Participants with AI literacy demonstrated a deeper understanding of AI. Conclusions We found that students in the medical school we studied are early adopters of AI, using it in various ways, and wish to utilize it effectively and ethically. The findings of this study align with other studies in other jurisdictions that call for early AI literacy.

Indexed as

AI LiteracyCo-designCompetency FrameworkCurriculum DevelopmentEthical ConsiderationsStudent PerspectivesThematic AnalysisUndergraduate Medical Education

Identifiers

PMID41836193
PMCPMC12980083

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.