Observational studyBMC medical education2026
AI integration into undergraduate health education streams- a multicenter study in Sri Lanka.
Observational study 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite rapid integration of AI in healthcare, formal AI education remains limited in health professional curricula globally, particularly in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study provides the first large-scale, multi-disciplinary quantitative assessment of AI-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) among undergraduate healthcare students at Sri Lankan state universities and identifies independent predictors of AI engagement.
methodsA multi-centre descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted between March and June 2025 across five randomly selected Sri Lankan state universities, adhering to STROBE reporting guidelines. The minimum required sample of 385 was calculated using Cochran's formula (Z = 1.96; p = 0.50; d = 0.05); 1,100 students were invited to achieve this target. A self-administered online questionnaire assessed KAP across five domains. Face and content validity were established through expert review and pre-testing with 15 participants outside the final sample. Two multivariable logistic regression models identified independent predictors of academic AI tool use and clinical AI exposure.
resultsOf 430 respondents (67.2% female; response rate 39.1%), AI awareness was near-universal (99.3%) and academic AI tool use was high (88.4%). Only 8.1% had received any formal AI training and only 21.6% reported clinical AI exposure. Curriculum integration was the strongest independent predictor of both academic AI use (AOR 2.58, 95% CI: 1.01-6.56, p = 0.047) and clinical AI exposure (AOR 5.16, 95% CI: 2.82-9.47, p < 0.001). Workshop participation independently predicted clinical AI exposure (AOR 2.71, 95% CI: 1.25-5.85, p = 0.011). The most frequently reported barriers were insufficient practical experience (55.8%), lack of guidance (55.8%), and limited resources (50.5%).
conclusionSri Lankan healthcare undergraduates demonstrate near-universal AI awareness but a pronounced competency gap characterised by limited formal training and minimal clinical AI engagement. Curriculum integration and structured experiential training were the strongest independent predictors of meaningful AI engagement. These findings support the urgent need for national curriculum reform and context-sensitive AI education frameworks for resource-constrained health professional training environments.
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.