Evaluating the role of AI chatbots in patient education for abdominal aortic aneurysms: a comparison of ChatGPT and conventional resources.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY ANZ Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2025-03-05 DOI:10.1111/ans.70053
Harry Collin, Chelsea Tong, Abhishekh Srinivas, Angus Pegler, Philip Allan, Daniel Hagley
{"title":"Evaluating the role of AI chatbots in patient education for abdominal aortic aneurysms: a comparison of ChatGPT and conventional resources.","authors":"Harry Collin, Chelsea Tong, Abhishekh Srinivas, Angus Pegler, Philip Allan, Daniel Hagley","doi":"10.1111/ans.70053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Backgrounds: </strong>Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) carry significant risks, yet patient understanding is often limited, with online resources typically low quality. ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, presents a new frontier in patient education, but concerns remain about misinformation. This study evaluates the quality of ChatGPT-generated patient information on AAA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eight patient questions on AAA were sourced from a reputable online resource for patient information funded by the Australian Government's Healthdirect Australia (HDA) website and input into ChatGPT's free (ChatGPT-4o mini) and paid (ChatGPT-4) models. A vascular surgeon evaluated response appropriateness. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid test. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) measured understandability and actionability, with responses scoring ≥75% for both considered high-quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All responses were deemed clinically appropriate. Mean response length was longer for ChatGPT than HDA. Readability was at a college level for ChatGPT, while HDA was at a 10th to 12th-grade level. One response was high-quality (generated by paid ChatGPT) with a PEMAT actionability score of ≥75%. Actionability scores were otherwise low across all sources with ChatGPT responses more likely to contain identifiable actions, although these were often not clearly presented. ChatGPT responses were marginally more understandable than HDA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT-generated information on AAA was appropriate and understandable, outperforming HDA in both aspects. However, AI responses are at a more advanced reading level and lack actionable instructions. AI chatbots show promise as supplemental tools for AAA patient education, but further refinement is needed to enhance their effectiveness in supporting informed decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":8158,"journal":{"name":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.70053","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Backgrounds: Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) carry significant risks, yet patient understanding is often limited, with online resources typically low quality. ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, presents a new frontier in patient education, but concerns remain about misinformation. This study evaluates the quality of ChatGPT-generated patient information on AAA.

Methods: Eight patient questions on AAA were sourced from a reputable online resource for patient information funded by the Australian Government's Healthdirect Australia (HDA) website and input into ChatGPT's free (ChatGPT-4o mini) and paid (ChatGPT-4) models. A vascular surgeon evaluated response appropriateness. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid test. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) measured understandability and actionability, with responses scoring ≥75% for both considered high-quality.

Results: All responses were deemed clinically appropriate. Mean response length was longer for ChatGPT than HDA. Readability was at a college level for ChatGPT, while HDA was at a 10th to 12th-grade level. One response was high-quality (generated by paid ChatGPT) with a PEMAT actionability score of ≥75%. Actionability scores were otherwise low across all sources with ChatGPT responses more likely to contain identifiable actions, although these were often not clearly presented. ChatGPT responses were marginally more understandable than HDA.

Conclusions: ChatGPT-generated information on AAA was appropriate and understandable, outperforming HDA in both aspects. However, AI responses are at a more advanced reading level and lack actionable instructions. AI chatbots show promise as supplemental tools for AAA patient education, but further refinement is needed to enhance their effectiveness in supporting informed decision-making.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ANZ Journal of Surgery
ANZ Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
720
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: ANZ Journal of Surgery is published by Wiley on behalf of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons to provide a medium for the publication of peer-reviewed original contributions related to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of surgery and related disciplines. It also provides a programme of continuing education for surgeons. All articles are peer-reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.
期刊最新文献
"Scoping" sustainability: rethinking sterile water use in colonoscopies. Challenges of a prehabilitation program for oesophageal cancer patients in the Australian setting. Current use of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics before elective colorectal resection in Australia and New Zealand. Evaluating the role of AI chatbots in patient education for abdominal aortic aneurysms: a comparison of ChatGPT and conventional resources. How to perform laparoscopic left hepatectomy with a dorsal approach based on the AHM triangle.
×
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