Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41926317›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Artificial Intelligence in Health Professions Education: Qualitative Study of Student Experiences.

Marina Guirguis, Salomon Fotsing, Joanne Fevry, Christine Landry, Diane Bouchard-Lamothe, Jennifer Lacroix, Alireza Jalali

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Whose Voice is it Anyway?Perspectives on medical education · 2026
    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.

Marina Guirguis *Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0008-8368-7827
Salomon Fotsing *Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0004-0130-2729
Joanne Fevry *Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0003-2331-757X
Christine Landry *School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4080-1147
Diane Bouchard-Lamothe *Francophone Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3721-0621
Jennifer Lacroix *Francophone Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0002-8208-8706
Alireza Jalali *Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0709-9088

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into education and health care, raising questions about how students use these technologies and how AI influences their learning. In health education, understanding these trends is particularly important because student learning directly impacts future clinical skills. Objective: This study aimed to explore the use of AI tools by health sciences students at the University of Ottawa. More specifically, it sought to identify the most frequently used AI tools, describe students' usage habits, determine which tools support knowledge acquisition and skill development, and gather students' recommendations for effective strategies to raise awareness and train their peers on the responsible use of AI. Methods: A qualitative approach was used with students from 10 health professions who reported using AI in their studies. Data were collected through semistructured interviews and an open-ended qualitative online survey. Inductive thematic analysis within an interpretive paradigm was applied to capture patterns, perceptions, and emergent themes. Results: A total of 51 health professions students participated in the study. Most were women between the ages of 20 and 29 years. ChatGPT (OpenAI) emerged as the most frequently used AI tool. Students perceived AI as a complementary tool that facilitated knowledge acquisition, skill development, writing, and problem-solving. AI adoption was driven by curiosity, peer influence, and the desire to improve work efficiency. Students critically evaluated AI results, integrated the tools into their learning processes, and emphasized the importance of technical skills, critical thinking, and digital literacy. Peer learning, hands-on demonstrations, and access to online resources were recommended for effective AI training. Conclusions: This research demonstrates that health professions students actively use AI tools, particularly ChatGPT, to support learning, skill development, and academic tasks. Although AI is valuable as an educational aid and its use varies by student and context, this highlights the need for structured guidance, critical evaluation skills, and peer-supported training. These findings highlight the importance of thoughtfully integrating AI into educational programs to enhance learning outcomes, foster skill acquisition, and ensure responsible and effective adoption.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHealth OccupationsAdultFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleQualitative ResearchYoung AdultAIartificial intelligenceChatGPTdigital literacyhealth professions educationlearning experiencelearning technologiesqualitative study

Identifiers

PMID41926317
PMCPMC13045872

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.