Usability and Efficacy of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots (ChatGPT) for Health Sciences Students: Protocol for a Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial.
AI
ChatGPT
OpenAI
RCT
artificial intelligence
crossover RCT
education
health sciences
learning outcomes
perceptions
randomized controlled trial
usability
Journal
JMIR research protocols
ISSN: 1929-0748
Titre abrégé: JMIR Res Protoc
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101599504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Nov 2023
24 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
15
08
2023
accepted:
20
10
2023
revised:
18
10
2023
medline:
24
11
2023
pubmed:
24
11
2023
entrez:
24
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into health sciences students' education holds significant importance. The rapid advancement of AI has opened new horizons in scientific writing and has the potential to reshape human-technology interactions. AI in education may impact critical thinking, leading to unintended consequences that need to be addressed. Understanding the implications of AI adoption in education is essential for ensuring its responsible and effective use, empowering health sciences students to navigate AI-driven technologies' evolving field with essential knowledge and skills. This study aims to provide details on the study protocol and the methods used to investigate the usability and efficacy of ChatGPT, a large language model. The primary focus is on assessing its role as a supplementary learning tool for improving learning processes and outcomes among undergraduate health sciences students, with a specific emphasis on chronic diseases. This single-blinded, crossover, randomized, controlled trial is part of a broader mixed methods study, and the primary emphasis of this paper is on the quantitative component of the overall research. A total of 50 students will be recruited for this study. The alternative hypothesis posits that there will be a significant difference in learning outcomes and technology usability between students using ChatGPT (group A) and those using standard web-based tools (group B) to access resources and complete assignments. Participants will be allocated to sequence AB or BA in a 1:1 ratio using computer-generated randomization. Both arms include students' participation in a writing assignment intervention, with a washout period of 21 days between interventions. The primary outcome is the measure of the technology usability and effectiveness of ChatGPT, whereas the secondary outcome is the measure of students' perceptions and experiences with ChatGPT as a learning tool. Outcome data will be collected up to 24 hours after the interventions. This study aims to understand the potential benefits and challenges of incorporating AI as an educational tool, particularly in the context of student learning. The findings are expected to identify critical areas that need attention and help educators develop a deeper understanding of AI's impact on the educational field. By exploring the differences in the usability and efficacy between ChatGPT and conventional web-based tools, this study seeks to inform educators and students on the responsible integration of AI into academic settings, with a specific focus on health sciences education. By exploring the usability and efficacy of ChatGPT compared with conventional web-based tools, this study seeks to inform educators and students about the responsible integration of AI into academic settings. ClinicalTrails.gov NCT05963802; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05963802. PRR1-10.2196/51873.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into health sciences students' education holds significant importance. The rapid advancement of AI has opened new horizons in scientific writing and has the potential to reshape human-technology interactions. AI in education may impact critical thinking, leading to unintended consequences that need to be addressed. Understanding the implications of AI adoption in education is essential for ensuring its responsible and effective use, empowering health sciences students to navigate AI-driven technologies' evolving field with essential knowledge and skills.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to provide details on the study protocol and the methods used to investigate the usability and efficacy of ChatGPT, a large language model. The primary focus is on assessing its role as a supplementary learning tool for improving learning processes and outcomes among undergraduate health sciences students, with a specific emphasis on chronic diseases.
METHODS
METHODS
This single-blinded, crossover, randomized, controlled trial is part of a broader mixed methods study, and the primary emphasis of this paper is on the quantitative component of the overall research. A total of 50 students will be recruited for this study. The alternative hypothesis posits that there will be a significant difference in learning outcomes and technology usability between students using ChatGPT (group A) and those using standard web-based tools (group B) to access resources and complete assignments. Participants will be allocated to sequence AB or BA in a 1:1 ratio using computer-generated randomization. Both arms include students' participation in a writing assignment intervention, with a washout period of 21 days between interventions. The primary outcome is the measure of the technology usability and effectiveness of ChatGPT, whereas the secondary outcome is the measure of students' perceptions and experiences with ChatGPT as a learning tool. Outcome data will be collected up to 24 hours after the interventions.
RESULTS
RESULTS
This study aims to understand the potential benefits and challenges of incorporating AI as an educational tool, particularly in the context of student learning. The findings are expected to identify critical areas that need attention and help educators develop a deeper understanding of AI's impact on the educational field. By exploring the differences in the usability and efficacy between ChatGPT and conventional web-based tools, this study seeks to inform educators and students on the responsible integration of AI into academic settings, with a specific focus on health sciences education.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
By exploring the usability and efficacy of ChatGPT compared with conventional web-based tools, this study seeks to inform educators and students about the responsible integration of AI into academic settings.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrails.gov NCT05963802; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05963802.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
UNASSIGNED
PRR1-10.2196/51873.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37999958
pii: v12i1e51873
doi: 10.2196/51873
pmc: PMC10709780
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05963802']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e51873Informations de copyright
©Mirella Veras, Joseph-Omer Dyer, Morgan Rooney, Paulo Goberlânio Barros Silva, Derek Rutherford, Dahlia Kairy. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 24.11.2023.
Références
JMIR Med Educ. 2023 Sep 5;9:e48254
pubmed: 37578934
PLoS One. 2023 Oct 5;18(10):e0292216
pubmed: 37796786
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Mar 19;11(6):
pubmed: 36981544
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020 Apr;36(2):113-125
pubmed: 32151291
Front Psychol. 2023 Jun 01;14:1181712
pubmed: 37325766
BMC Med Educ. 2022 Nov 9;22(1):772
pubmed: 36352431
Sci Rep. 2021 Sep 13;11(1):18109
pubmed: 34518568
J Pers Med. 2022 May 20;12(5):
pubmed: 35629252
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Apr 11;7(4):e11500
pubmed: 30973342
Am J Cancer Res. 2023 Apr 15;13(4):1148-1154
pubmed: 37168339
Am J Med. 2020 Feb;133(2):e68
pubmed: 31954481
BMJ. 2019 Jul 31;366:l4378
pubmed: 31366597
Front Digit Health. 2021 Nov 11;3:739327
pubmed: 34859245
Med Educ Online. 2023 Dec;28(1):2182659
pubmed: 36855245
Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2023;28(4):4221-4241
pubmed: 36254344
Disabil Rehabil. 2022 Dec 27;:1-6
pubmed: 36573399
BMC Med Educ. 2022 Nov 28;22(1):815
pubmed: 36443720
Indian Dermatol Online J. 2019 Mar-Apr;10(2):193-201
pubmed: 30984604
Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2023 Sep 21;13(9):1937-1960
pubmed: 37754479
Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020 Dec;119:105535
pubmed: 33020676
BMJ. 2020 Sep 9;370:m3164
pubmed: 32909959
JAMA. 1996 Aug 28;276(8):637-9
pubmed: 8773637
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2021 Aug;74(4):293-299
pubmed: 34344139
J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2023 Jul;11(3):133-140
pubmed: 37469385