ArticleBMC medical education2026
Generative AI and knowledge management in health education: a cross-sectional study of students' digital literacy and attitudes from a developing-country context.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming higher education and digital learning. However, a scarcity of information remains regarding the students' perspectives on AI's role in education. We investigated AI-related knowledge, use, and attitudes among entry-level healthcare students in Kosovo.
methodsCross-sectional online survey (June-August 2025) of entry-level students from two institutions (≈ 700 invited; N = 302; response 43.1%). Analyses used χ² with Cramér's V, and Kruskal-Wallis with ε²; α = 0.05.
resultsChatGPT was reported as the primary AI instrument (84.2%). 74.8% of participants perceived AI integration positively, 77.2% supported curricular integration, and its ability to facilitate access to information was 91.4%. Interest in AI training was as high as 71.2%, whereas major concerns included error risks (29.5%) and reduced creativity (29.0%). Program differences were observed for faculty use of AI-assisted materials (p = 0.006; Cramér's V = 0.20), AI-training opportunities (p = 0.037; V = 0.17), and institutional AI-tool provision (p = 0.032; V = 0.151); self-rated AI knowledge did not differ (p = 0.274; ε²=0.003).
conclusionsFindings indicate general positivity towards AI, alongside concerns regarding unequal access and limited formal training. These findings underscore the importance of integrating generative AI within e-learning strategies, strengthening students' digital literacy, and ensuring institutional support in developing country settings.
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.