ArticleBMC medical education2026
Generative artificial intelligence adoption and use in teaching and training healthcare professionals in higher education in the United States: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is rapidly expanding across medical and allied health education. However, structured and curriculum-integrated training to prepare future healthcare professionals remains limited. This study examined the adoption, self-reported knowledge, and perceptions of GenAI among faculty and students in a U.S. higher education institution.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using a self-administered online questionnaire to assess GenAI knowledge, adoption, use, benefits, and challenges among faculty and students in a public Minority Serving Institution in California. Using a convenience sampling technique, data were collected with Qualtrics from January – March 2025 and analysed with IBM SPSS Statistics version 31.
resultsA total of 559 complete responses were analysed (faculty: 19.3%; students: 78.5%). Overall, 83.2% of respondents reported having used GenAI, including 91.1% of faculty and 81.4% of students, with no statistically significant difference by role (p = .12). Only 7.9% had received formal training in GenAI, while 29.1% reported having conducted substantial independent research on GenAI (faculty: 48.5%; students: 24.3%). Nearly half of participants (48.7%) perceived GenAI as beneficial for learning, teaching, and research (p = .002). Additionally, 47.4% believed GenAI is currently essential, and 70.8% anticipated it will become essential in the future, with significant more faculty respondents asserting the importance of AI (p < .001 and p = .009, respectively). Most respondents relied on free GenAI tools (90.6%), and among users of paid tools, 66.3% paid out of pocket. Participants primarily sourced GenAI information from the internet (77.3%), reported substantial concerns (70.3%), and experienced multiple challenges in GenAI use (84.7%).
conclusionsGenAI use among faculty and students is widespread, but formal training and institutional support remain limited. These findings underscore the need for coordinated, campus-wide GenAI training, governance, and policy frameworks to promote ethical, effective, and equitable integration of GenAI into healthcare education and workforce preparation.
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.