ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
ChatGPT in healthcare: perceptions, ethical considerations, and practice implications among healthcare professionals in Ecuador and other countries in the Americas: a cross-sectional survey study.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Generative artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT, are increasingly discussed in healthcare; however, evidence from Latin American professional settings is limited and must be interpreted in light of regional digital inequities and ethical concerns. Objective: To examine awareness, ethical perceptions, usage patterns, and attitude determinants related to ChatGPT among HCPs practicing mainly in Ecuador and other countries in the Americas. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey between May and September 2023. Recruitment was conducted using professional networks, institutions, conferences, and social media. Descriptive analyses were performed for the entire sample. Ethical and usefulness analyses were restricted to respondents with at least minimal knowledge of ChatGPT ( Results: Of the 747 respondents, 610 (81.66%) practiced in Ecuador, 281 (37.62%) were physicians, 203 (27.18%) were dentists, and 42 (5.62%) were nurses or allied health professionals. Overall, 424 (56.76%) had heard of ChatGPT, 239 (31.99%) had ever used it, and 323 (43.24%) reported no knowledge of it. Among respondents with at least minimal familiarity, 311/394 (78.93%) agreed that ChatGPT could be beneficial in healthcare settings, 256/389 (65.81%) considered it trustworthy for healthcare information, and 286/391 (73.15%) considered it useful for specific medical questions. Ethical judgments were mixed: 179/395 (45.32%) were neutral about language revision in a scientific manuscript, 189/395 (47.85%) considered AI-generated manuscript text unethical, and 268/395 (67.85%) considered sole-source clinical use unethical. Among prior users, the most common uses were homework or academic support (134/239, 56.07%), research writing support (117/239, 48.95%), and medical or healthcare education and training (55/239, 23.01%). Higher knowledge and ethical acceptance scores were independently associated with more favorable attitudes. Ethical acceptance predicted stronger agreement that ChatGPT could be beneficial in healthcare settings ( Conclusions: Healthcare professionals in this sample showed cautious optimism toward ChatGPT, but awareness remained moderate, use was limited, and ethical reservations were substantial. Structured, context-specific training and more regionally representative studies are needed before large-scale integration can be recommended.
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.