背景:ChatGPT不打算用于医疗保健,但是它的潜在好处取决于最终用户的理解和可接受性,这是医疗保健学生变得至关重要的地方。这方面的研究仍然有限。
目的:我们研究的主要目的是评估ChatGPT的使用频率,感知的知识水平,与使用相关的感知风险,和道德问题,以及在卫生领域的教育背景下对ChatGPT使用的态度。此外,我们的目的是根据人口统计学变量检验各组间是否存在差异.研究的第二部分旨在评估使用频率之间的关联,感知知识的水平,风险感知水平,以及道德认知水平作为参与者对使用ChatGPT态度的预测因素。
方法:2023年5月至6月进行了一次横断面调查,调查对象包括医学学生,护理,牙科,营养,和整个美洲的实验室科学。研究采用描述性分析,卡方检验,和方差分析评估不同类别的统计显著性。该研究使用了几个序数逻辑回归模型来分析预测因素的影响(使用频率,对知识的感知,对风险的感知,和道德感知得分)以态度为因变量。这些模型根据性别进行了调整,机构类型,major,和国家。Stata用于进行所有分析。
结果:在2661名卫生保健学生中,42.99%(n=1144)不知道ChatGPT。知识的中位数为“最小”(中位数2.00,IQR1.00-3.00)。大多数受访者(中位数2.61,IQR2.11-3.11)认为ChatGPT既不符合道德也不符合道德。大多数参与者(中位数3.89,IQR3.44-4.34)“有点同意”ChatGPT(1)有利于医疗保健环境,(2)提供可信数据,(3)是临床和教育医学信息获取的有用工具,(4)使工作更容易。总的来说,70%(7/10)的人将其用于家庭作业。随着对ChatGPT的感知知识的增加,对ChatGPT持有利态度的倾向更强。较高的道德考虑感知等级增加了将ChatGPT视为值得信赖的医疗保健信息来源的可能性(优势比[OR]1.620,95%CI1.498-1.752),对医疗问题有益(OR1.495,95%CI1.452-1.539),对医学文献有用(OR1.494,95%CI1.426-1.564;所有结果P<.001)。
结论:超过40%的美国医疗保健学生(1144/2661,42.99%)不知道ChatGPT,尽管它在健康领域广泛使用。我们的数据揭示了对ChatGPT的积极态度以及对更多了解它的愿望。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计划。
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.