ArticleJournal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics : JDBP
Investigating the Quality of Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer's (ChatGPT) Parenting Advice.
Article in Journal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics : JDBP. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesChat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a widely adopted tool that can provide immediate parenting guidance. The aim of this study was to examine the quality of ChatGPT parenting advice.
methodsClinically relevant ChatGPT queries (n = 100) were created by investigators from a national poll on parents' most pressing concerns (screen media, mental health, feeding, school violence, smoking/vaping, and cost of health care/health insurance). ChatGPT 4o was queried for responses to these questions (June-July 2024). A coding scheme on parenting advice quality was adapted from previous literature with 15 items (presence or absence) and independently coded by an interdisciplinary team. Disagreements were resolved by majority consensus. Seven of these codes were summed, creating an overall quality variable (range 0-7, 7 = high). ANOVA with post hoc Tukey-Kramer analyses compared the overall quality of advice across topics (except cost of health care/health insurance). Analyses were conducted in SAS 9.4.
resultsChatGPT frequently shared accurate information about the benefits of parenting approaches and infrequently shared information about risks or psychosocial nuances such as developmental information, race/ethnic diversity, neurodiversity, and social drivers of health. There were differences in response quality between categories (F-value 4.29, p = 0.003). Post hoc analyses found that screen media advice (mean = 3.7, SD = 1.0) was of lower quality versus mental health (mean = 4.6, SD = 1.5, p = 0.03) and smoking/vaping (mean = 5.0, SD = 1.3, p = 0.03). Feeding mean was 3.7 (SD = 1.3); school violence mean was 4.8 (SD = 1.2); cost of health care/health insurance mean was 2.8 (SD = 0.6).
conclusionChatGPT's information was overall accurate; however, the quality of advice varied by parenting topic. ChatGPT quality may be lower for topics such as screen media, which may have more nuanced or variable approaches.
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.