了解医学生对人工智能语言模型的看法、信念和态度:横断面研究。

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES JMIR Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-08-13 DOI:10.2196/51757
Ivan Cherrez-Ojeda, Juan C Gallardo-Bastidas, Karla Robles-Velasco, María F Osorio, Eleonor Maria Velez Leon, Manuel Leon Velastegui, Patrícia Pauletto, F C Aguilar-Díaz, Aldo Squassi, Susana Patricia González Eras, Erita Cordero Carrasco, Karol Leonor Chavez Gonzalez, Juan C Calderon, Jean Bousquet, Anna Bedbrook, Marco Faytong-Haro
{"title":"了解医学生对人工智能语言模型的看法、信念和态度:横断面研究。","authors":"Ivan Cherrez-Ojeda, Juan C Gallardo-Bastidas, Karla Robles-Velasco, María F Osorio, Eleonor Maria Velez Leon, Manuel Leon Velastegui, Patrícia Pauletto, F C Aguilar-Díaz, Aldo Squassi, Susana Patricia González Eras, Erita Cordero Carrasco, Karol Leonor Chavez Gonzalez, Juan C Calderon, Jean Bousquet, Anna Bedbrook, Marco Faytong-Haro","doi":"10.2196/51757","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>ChatGPT was not intended for use in health care, but it has potential benefits that depend on end-user understanding and acceptability, which is where health care students become crucial. There is still a limited amount of research in this area.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The primary aim of our study was to assess the frequency of ChatGPT use, the perceived level of knowledge, the perceived risks associated with its use, and the ethical issues, as well as attitudes toward the use of ChatGPT in the context of education in the field of health. In addition, we aimed to examine whether there were differences across groups based on demographic variables. The second part of the study aimed to assess the association between the frequency of use, the level of perceived knowledge, the level of risk perception, and the level of perception of ethics as predictive factors for participants' attitudes toward the use of ChatGPT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was conducted from May to June 2023 encompassing students of medicine, nursing, dentistry, nutrition, and laboratory science across the Americas. The study used descriptive analysis, chi-square tests, and ANOVA to assess statistical significance across different categories. The study used several ordinal logistic regression models to analyze the impact of predictive factors (frequency of use, perception of knowledge, perception of risk, and ethics perception scores) on attitude as the dependent variable. The models were adjusted for gender, institution type, major, and country. Stata was used to conduct all the analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2661 health care students, 42.99% (n=1144) were unaware of ChatGPT. The median score of knowledge was \"minimal\" (median 2.00, IQR 1.00-3.00). Most respondents (median 2.61, IQR 2.11-3.11) regarded ChatGPT as neither ethical nor unethical. Most participants (median 3.89, IQR 3.44-4.34) \"somewhat agreed\" that ChatGPT (1) benefits health care settings, (2) provides trustworthy data, (3) is a helpful tool for clinical and educational medical information access, and (4) makes the work easier. In total, 70% (7/10) of people used it for homework. As the perceived knowledge of ChatGPT increased, there was a stronger tendency with regard to having a favorable attitude toward ChatGPT. Higher ethical consideration perception ratings increased the likelihood of considering ChatGPT as a source of trustworthy health care information (odds ratio [OR] 1.620, 95% CI 1.498-1.752), beneficial in medical issues (OR 1.495, 95% CI 1.452-1.539), and useful for medical literature (OR 1.494, 95% CI 1.426-1.564; P<.001 for all results).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Over 40% of American health care students (1144/2661, 42.99%) were unaware of ChatGPT despite its extensive use in the health field. Our data revealed the positive attitudes toward ChatGPT and the desire to learn more about it. Medical educators must explore how chatbots may be included in undergraduate health care education programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":36236,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Education","volume":"10 ","pages":"e51757"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11350293/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding Health Care Students' Perceptions, Beliefs, and Attitudes Toward AI-Powered Language Models: Cross-Sectional Study.\",\"authors\":\"Ivan Cherrez-Ojeda, Juan C Gallardo-Bastidas, Karla Robles-Velasco, María F Osorio, Eleonor Maria Velez Leon, Manuel Leon Velastegui, Patrícia Pauletto, F C Aguilar-Díaz, Aldo Squassi, Susana Patricia González Eras, Erita Cordero Carrasco, Karol Leonor Chavez Gonzalez, Juan C Calderon, Jean Bousquet, Anna Bedbrook, Marco Faytong-Haro\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/51757\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>ChatGPT was not intended for use in health care, but it has potential benefits that depend on end-user understanding and acceptability, which is where health care students become crucial. There is still a limited amount of research in this area.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The primary aim of our study was to assess the frequency of ChatGPT use, the perceived level of knowledge, the perceived risks associated with its use, and the ethical issues, as well as attitudes toward the use of ChatGPT in the context of education in the field of health. In addition, we aimed to examine whether there were differences across groups based on demographic variables. The second part of the study aimed to assess the association between the frequency of use, the level of perceived knowledge, the level of risk perception, and the level of perception of ethics as predictive factors for participants' attitudes toward the use of ChatGPT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was conducted from May to June 2023 encompassing students of medicine, nursing, dentistry, nutrition, and laboratory science across the Americas. The study used descriptive analysis, chi-square tests, and ANOVA to assess statistical significance across different categories. The study used several ordinal logistic regression models to analyze the impact of predictive factors (frequency of use, perception of knowledge, perception of risk, and ethics perception scores) on attitude as the dependent variable. The models were adjusted for gender, institution type, major, and country. Stata was used to conduct all the analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2661 health care students, 42.99% (n=1144) were unaware of ChatGPT. The median score of knowledge was \\\"minimal\\\" (median 2.00, IQR 1.00-3.00). Most respondents (median 2.61, IQR 2.11-3.11) regarded ChatGPT as neither ethical nor unethical. Most participants (median 3.89, IQR 3.44-4.34) \\\"somewhat agreed\\\" that ChatGPT (1) benefits health care settings, (2) provides trustworthy data, (3) is a helpful tool for clinical and educational medical information access, and (4) makes the work easier. In total, 70% (7/10) of people used it for homework. As the perceived knowledge of ChatGPT increased, there was a stronger tendency with regard to having a favorable attitude toward ChatGPT. Higher ethical consideration perception ratings increased the likelihood of considering ChatGPT as a source of trustworthy health care information (odds ratio [OR] 1.620, 95% CI 1.498-1.752), beneficial in medical issues (OR 1.495, 95% CI 1.452-1.539), and useful for medical literature (OR 1.494, 95% CI 1.426-1.564; P<.001 for all results).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Over 40% of American health care students (1144/2661, 42.99%) were unaware of ChatGPT despite its extensive use in the health field. Our data revealed the positive attitudes toward ChatGPT and the desire to learn more about it. Medical educators must explore how chatbots may be included in undergraduate health care education programs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"e51757\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11350293/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/51757\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/51757","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:ChatGPT 并不打算用于医疗保健领域,但它的潜在优势取决于最终用户的理解和接受程度,而这正是医疗保健专业学生的关键所在。这方面的研究还很有限:我们研究的主要目的是评估在卫生领域教育背景下使用 ChatGPT 的频率、认知水平、与使用 ChatGPT 相关的风险、伦理问题以及对使用 ChatGPT 的态度。此外,我们还旨在研究不同群体之间是否存在基于人口统计学变量的差异。研究的第二部分旨在评估使用频率、感知知识水平、风险感知水平和道德感知水平与参与者对使用 ChatGPT 的态度之间的关联:于 2023 年 5 月至 6 月进行了一项横断面调查,调查对象包括美洲各地的医学、护理学、牙医学、营养学和实验室科学专业的学生。研究采用了描述性分析、卡方检验和方差分析来评估不同类别之间的统计意义。研究使用了多个序数逻辑回归模型来分析预测因素(使用频率、知识感知、风险感知和道德感知得分)对因变量态度的影响。模型根据性别、机构类型、专业和国家进行了调整。所有分析均使用 Stata 进行:在 2661 名医护学生中,42.99%(n=1144)的学生不了解 ChatGPT。了解程度的中位数为 "最低"(中位数 2.00,IQR 1.00-3.00)。大多数受访者(中位数 2.61,IQR 2.11-3.11)认为 ChatGPT 既不道德,也不违背伦理。大多数参与者(中位数 3.89,IQR 3.44-4.34)"有点同意 "ChatGPT(1)有益于医疗机构,(2)提供值得信赖的数据,(3)是临床和教育医疗信息获取的有用工具,(4)使工作更轻松。共有 70% (7/10)的人将其用于家庭作业。随着对 ChatGPT 认知的增加,人们对 ChatGPT 的好感度也在增加。较高的道德考量感知评分增加了将 ChatGPT 视为值得信赖的医疗保健信息来源(几率比 [OR] 1.620,95% CI 1.498-1.752)、有益于医疗问题(OR 1.495,95% CI 1.452-1.539)和对医学文献有用(OR 1.494,95% CI 1.426-1.564;PC 结论:尽管 ChatGPT 在医疗领域得到了广泛应用,但仍有超过 40% 的美国医学生(1144/2661,42.99%)不了解 ChatGPT。我们的数据显示了学生们对 ChatGPT 的积极态度和进一步了解它的愿望。医学教育工作者必须探索如何将聊天机器人纳入本科医疗保健教育课程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Understanding Health Care Students' Perceptions, Beliefs, and Attitudes Toward AI-Powered Language Models: Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: ChatGPT was not intended for use in health care, but it has potential benefits that depend on end-user understanding and acceptability, which is where health care students become crucial. There is still a limited amount of research in this area.

Objective: The primary aim of our study was to assess the frequency of ChatGPT use, the perceived level of knowledge, the perceived risks associated with its use, and the ethical issues, as well as attitudes toward the use of ChatGPT in the context of education in the field of health. In addition, we aimed to examine whether there were differences across groups based on demographic variables. The second part of the study aimed to assess the association between the frequency of use, the level of perceived knowledge, the level of risk perception, and the level of perception of ethics as predictive factors for participants' attitudes toward the use of ChatGPT.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from May to June 2023 encompassing students of medicine, nursing, dentistry, nutrition, and laboratory science across the Americas. The study used descriptive analysis, chi-square tests, and ANOVA to assess statistical significance across different categories. The study used several ordinal logistic regression models to analyze the impact of predictive factors (frequency of use, perception of knowledge, perception of risk, and ethics perception scores) on attitude as the dependent variable. The models were adjusted for gender, institution type, major, and country. Stata was used to conduct all the analyses.

Results: Of 2661 health care students, 42.99% (n=1144) were unaware of ChatGPT. The median score of knowledge was "minimal" (median 2.00, IQR 1.00-3.00). Most respondents (median 2.61, IQR 2.11-3.11) regarded ChatGPT as neither ethical nor unethical. Most participants (median 3.89, IQR 3.44-4.34) "somewhat agreed" that ChatGPT (1) benefits health care settings, (2) provides trustworthy data, (3) is a helpful tool for clinical and educational medical information access, and (4) makes the work easier. In total, 70% (7/10) of people used it for homework. As the perceived knowledge of ChatGPT increased, there was a stronger tendency with regard to having a favorable attitude toward ChatGPT. Higher ethical consideration perception ratings increased the likelihood of considering ChatGPT as a source of trustworthy health care information (odds ratio [OR] 1.620, 95% CI 1.498-1.752), beneficial in medical issues (OR 1.495, 95% CI 1.452-1.539), and useful for medical literature (OR 1.494, 95% CI 1.426-1.564; P<.001 for all results).

Conclusions: Over 40% of American health care students (1144/2661, 42.99%) were unaware of ChatGPT despite its extensive use in the health field. Our data revealed the positive attitudes toward ChatGPT and the desire to learn more about it. Medical educators must explore how chatbots may be included in undergraduate health care education programs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Medical Education
JMIR Medical Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Leveraging Open-Source Large Language Models for Data Augmentation in Hospital Staff Surveys: Mixed Methods Study. Virtual Reality Simulation in Undergraduate Health Care Education Programs: Usability Study. Correction: Psychological Safety Competency Training During the Clinical Internship From the Perspective of Health Care Trainee Mentors in 11 Pan-European Countries: Mixed Methods Observational Study. ChatGPT-4 Omni Performance in USMLE Disciplines and Clinical Skills: Comparative Analysis. Leveraging the Electronic Health Record to Measure Resident Clinical Experiences and Identify Training Gaps: Development and Usability Study.
×
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