ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Integrating Generative AI into public health education: a mixed methods evaluation of student experiences.
Article in Frontiers in public 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) continues to influence pedagogical practices in higher education, prevailing discourse has largely focused on issues of assessment integrity, often overlooking student perspectives. Yet, understanding student voices is essential to ensure that AI-enhanced teaching and assessment remain student centred, equitable, and aligned with intended learning outcomes. This study aimed to explore postgraduate health science students' perceptions and experiences of the structured integration of GenAI into teaching and assessment within the Epidemiology and Principles of Research unit at the University of Canberra. Methods: A mixed-methods study was conducted using pre- and post-intervention surveys administered to all enrolled students, with 78 participants completing the evaluation. The intervention involved the scaffolded integration of GenAI into a critical appraisal assessment. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test to assess changes over time. Qualitative data from open-ended responses were analysed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach. Results: Students reported statistically significant improvements in their understanding of GenAI and perceived ability to use it effectively ( Conclusion: The findings highlight the importance of thoughtful pedagogical designs that center student voice, support critical engagement, and prepare learners for responsible and reflective use in future professional practice.
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.