SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Investigating the use of generative AI policies among ASPPH member schools and programs of public health.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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.
- Building Graduate Capabilities Through a Course-Wide Public Health and Health Promotion ECHA AI Curriculum Framework.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in public health education: current evidence, competencies, and a framework for responsible integration.Frontiers in public health · 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
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into the operational and curricular foundations of higher education is a dynamically evolving issue, particularly in public health programs looking to ethically embrace the ever-growing potential of AI in health research and education. Despite a collective priority across the United States to effectively adopt generative AI, few works have characterized the scope and rigor of existing guidance. Methods: This study employs a mixed-method design to characterize AI use guidance offered by member schools of the American Schools and Programs of Public Health. Guidance documents are screened for relevance and accessibility, with the remaining documents being classified as guidelines or policies. The determined policies are analyzed for content via descriptive analysis, content analysis, TF-IDF analysis, and thematic analysis. Results: Out of a possible 155 schools, 18 schools were determined to have a generative AI use policy. TF-IDF analysis identified recurring terms of importance throughout the corpus of policy documents. Content and Thematic Analysis identified areas of focus and themes shared throughout the corpus of documents. The resulting triangulated data are used to identify strengths and shortcomings in the extant policies with suggestions for further development. Conclusion: The results of the mixed-method design indicate that extant generative AI guidance in schools and programs of public health in the United States is in its relative infancy. Shared themes and areas of focus show a predominant focus on the intersection of academic integrity and AI use among students and faculty. Additionally, data privacy and security, research ethics, and other areas are currently under consideration. This study demonstrates that AI use governance is growing but narrow in scope. Further development in the areas of pedagogy, legal guidance, and ethical use frameworks are needed in order to meet the growing demand to integrate generative AI into US higher education.
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.