Suitability of ChatGPT as a Source of Patient Information for Screening Mammography.

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Promotion Practice Pub Date : 2024-10-11 DOI:10.1177/15248399241285060
Kelly Spuur, Geoff Currie, Dana Al-Mousa, Ruth Pape
{"title":"Suitability of ChatGPT as a Source of Patient Information for Screening Mammography.","authors":"Kelly Spuur, Geoff Currie, Dana Al-Mousa, Ruth Pape","doi":"10.1177/15248399241285060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ChatGPT3.5 and ChatGPT4 were released publicly in late November 2022 and March 2023, respectively, and have emerged as convenient sources of patient health education and information, including for screening mammography. ChatGPT4 offers enhanced capabilities; however, it is only available by paid subscription. The purported benefits of ChatGPT for health education need to be objectively evaluated. To assess performance differences, ChatGPT3.5 and GPT4 were used between 13 April and 29 May 2023 to generate breast screening patient information sheets, which were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for printed materials (PEMAT-P) and the CDC Clear Communication Index (CDC Index) Score Sheet; and benchmarked against gold standard content in BreastScreen NSW's patient information sheet. Mean scores were reported for comparison. GPT3.5 provided the appropriate tone and currency of information but lacked accuracy, omitting key insights: PEMAT-P understandability 68.0% (SD = 6.56) and actionability 36.7% (SD=20.4); CDC Index 58.8% (SD = 15.3). GPT4 was deemed superior to GPT3.5 but included several key omissions: PEMAT-P understandability 75.0% (SD = 17) and actionability 53.3% (SD = 11.54); CDC Index 66.0% (SD = 4.1). Both ChatGPT versions exhibited poor understandability and actionability and were unclear in their messaging. Those with poor health literacy will not benefit from accessing current versions of ChatGPT and may be further disadvantaged if they do not have access to a paid subscription. ChatGPT is evidenced to be an unreliable and inaccurate source of information concerning breast screening that may undermine participation and risk increased morbidity and mortality from breast cancer. ChatGPT may increase the demand on health care educators to rectify misinformation.</p>","PeriodicalId":47956,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion Practice","volume":" ","pages":"15248399241285060"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399241285060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ChatGPT3.5 and ChatGPT4 were released publicly in late November 2022 and March 2023, respectively, and have emerged as convenient sources of patient health education and information, including for screening mammography. ChatGPT4 offers enhanced capabilities; however, it is only available by paid subscription. The purported benefits of ChatGPT for health education need to be objectively evaluated. To assess performance differences, ChatGPT3.5 and GPT4 were used between 13 April and 29 May 2023 to generate breast screening patient information sheets, which were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for printed materials (PEMAT-P) and the CDC Clear Communication Index (CDC Index) Score Sheet; and benchmarked against gold standard content in BreastScreen NSW's patient information sheet. Mean scores were reported for comparison. GPT3.5 provided the appropriate tone and currency of information but lacked accuracy, omitting key insights: PEMAT-P understandability 68.0% (SD = 6.56) and actionability 36.7% (SD=20.4); CDC Index 58.8% (SD = 15.3). GPT4 was deemed superior to GPT3.5 but included several key omissions: PEMAT-P understandability 75.0% (SD = 17) and actionability 53.3% (SD = 11.54); CDC Index 66.0% (SD = 4.1). Both ChatGPT versions exhibited poor understandability and actionability and were unclear in their messaging. Those with poor health literacy will not benefit from accessing current versions of ChatGPT and may be further disadvantaged if they do not have access to a paid subscription. ChatGPT is evidenced to be an unreliable and inaccurate source of information concerning breast screening that may undermine participation and risk increased morbidity and mortality from breast cancer. ChatGPT may increase the demand on health care educators to rectify misinformation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ChatGPT 作为乳腺 X 射线筛查患者信息来源的适用性。
ChatGPT3.5 和 ChatGPT4 分别于 2022 年 11 月底和 2023 年 3 月公开发布,已成为患者健康教育和信息的便捷来源,包括乳腺 X 光筛查。ChatGPT4 提供了更强大的功能,但只能通过付费订阅获得。需要对 ChatGPT 在健康教育方面的所谓优势进行客观评估。为了评估性能差异,我们在 2023 年 4 月 13 日至 5 月 29 日期间使用 ChatGPT3.5 和 GPT4 生成了乳腺筛查患者信息表,并使用印刷材料患者教育材料评估工具 (PEMAT-P) 和疾病预防控制中心清晰沟通指数 (CDC Index) 评分表对其进行了评估;还将其与新南威尔士州乳腺筛查患者信息表中的黄金标准内容进行了比较。报告了平均分数,以供比较。GPT3.5 提供了适当的语气和最新的信息,但缺乏准确性,遗漏了关键的见解:PEMAT-P可理解性为68.0%(标度=6.56),可操作性为36.7%(标度=20.4);CDC指数为58.8%(标度=15.3)。GPT4 被认为优于 GPT3.5,但包括几个关键的遗漏:PEMAT-P 的可理解性为 75.0%(标准差=17),可操作性为 53.3%(标准差=11.54);CDC 指数为 66.0%(标准差=4.1)。两个 ChatGPT 版本的可理解性和可操作性都很差,信息也不明确。健康素养较差的人无法从当前版本的 ChatGPT 中获益,如果他们无法付费订阅,可能会处于更加不利的地位。有证据表明,ChatGPT 是一种不可靠、不准确的乳腺癌筛查信息来源,可能会影响乳腺癌筛查的参与度,并有可能增加乳腺癌的发病率和死亡率。ChatGPT 可能会增加对保健教育工作者纠正错误信息的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Promotion Practice
Health Promotion Practice PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
126
期刊介绍: Health Promotion Practice (HPP) publishes authoritative articles devoted to the practical application of health promotion and education. It publishes information of strategic importance to a broad base of professionals engaged in the practice of developing, implementing, and evaluating health promotion and disease prevention programs. The journal"s editorial board is committed to focusing on the applications of health promotion and public health education interventions, programs and best practice strategies in various settings, including but not limited to, community, health care, worksite, educational, and international settings. Additionally, the journal focuses on the development and application of public policy conducive to the promotion of health and prevention of disease.
期刊最新文献
From Daunting to Doable: Tools for Qualitative Evaluation of a Complex Public Health Intervention. Strengthening Academic Public Health Programs and Workforce Development Through Fieldwork: Insights From a Novel Partnership Between New Mexico's Two Major Universities. Youth and Young Adult Access to Flavored Vaping Products Following a Sales Restriction in New York State: A Mixed Methods Approach. "It Has to Be Culturally Inclusive": Food Distribution Services for Diverse Communities in New York City. A Community-Engaged Research Study to Inform Tailored Programming for Smoking Cessation and Lung Cancer Screening Among At-Risk LGBTQ+ Elders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1