ArticleBMC medical education2026
Changes in artificial intelligence literacy, attitudes, and acceptance following ChatGPT-based training among midwifery students.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing role of artificial intelligence technologies in health education and clinical practice makes understanding the knowledge, attitudes, and readiness levels of future healthcare professionals in this field increasingly important. This study aimed to examine changes in midwifery students' attitudes, literacy, and acceptance levels regarding artificial intelligence (AI) following a brief ChatGPT-based artificial intelligence training program. Additionally, the study sought to explore how students perceive and integrate AI within professional contexts, supported by qualitative data.
methodsThe study was conducted using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. In the quantitative phase, a single-group pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design involving a brief ChatGPT-based artificial intelligence training intervention was applied (n = 36 pre-test; n = 32 post-test). In the qualitative phase, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with purposefully selected students (n = 7). Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, paired-samples t-tests, and correlation analysis. Thematic analysis was used for the qualitative data.
resultsStatistically significant improvements were observed in students' attitudes toward AI (p<0.001, Cohen's d=- 0.96, large effect) and AI acceptance (p=0.008, Cohen's d=- 0.51, moderate effect) following the training. In contrast, changes in AI literacy scores were positive but not statistically significant (p=0.351, Cohen's d =-0.17, small effect). These findings indicate that the magnitude of change varied across outcome domains, with stronger effect size values observed in attitudinal and acceptance-related measures compared to AI literacy. Qualitative findings revealed that students perceived AI as a supportive tool, reported reduced ethical concerns after the training, and expressed increased self-confidence in using AI tools. The training enhanced students' engagement with AI; however, the development of deep AI literacy was found to require repeated and practice-based learning experiences.
conclusionShort-term AI training was associated with more positive attitudes and greater acceptance of AI among midwifery students; however, its contribution to AI literacy development appears more limited and may require sustained educational exposure. Therefore, integrating AI into health education curricula through pedagogically structured, practice-oriented, and ethically grounded educational modules may support students' gradual development of AI-related competencies while maintaining the principles of human-centered care. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.