TMU
Owner
Tarbiat Modares University (TMU) is the owner of HEHP.
0.8
Cite Score 2025
Volume 14, Issue 1 (2026)
Health Educ Health Promot 2026, 14(1): 125-132 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
History
Received: 2026/01/6 | Accepted: 2026/02/16 | Published: 2026/01/29
Received: 2026/01/6 | Accepted: 2026/02/16 | Published: 2026/01/29
How to cite this article
Abjar R, Nouri Khaneghah Z, Sadati L, Hosseini S, Ramezani G. Faculty Members’ Perspectives on Using Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Medical Education and Research. Health Educ Health Promot 2026; 14 (1) :125-132
URL: http://hehp.daneshafarand.org/article-4-83093-en.html
URL: http://hehp.daneshafarand.org/article-4-83093-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Abstract (490 Views)
Aims: The effective adoption of artificial intelligence in medical academia depends critically on the perspectives of faculty members as the primary stakeholders. Therefore, this study aimed to elucidate faculty perspectives regarding the use of artificial intelligence chatbots in medical education and research.
Participants & Methods: This qualitative study employed conventional content analysis. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 18 faculty members. Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling until data saturation was reached. Interviews were analyzed using the conventional content analysis method developed by Graneheim & Lundman, and the rigor of the findings was ensured in accordance with Lincoln & Guba’s criteria.
Findings: Three main categories were obtained, including “practical application domains of artificial intelligence tools,” which included the sub-categories of content creation and instructional design, academic research support and production, and therapeutic application, “identified benefits and challenges of artificial intelligence tools,” comprising sub-categories of ethical and security concerns, educational and pedagogical concerns regarding student learning, technical and infrastructural limitations, and perceived advantages and opportunities, and prerequisites and enablers for effective artificial intelligence tools use, covering the sub-categories of competency development, foundational attitudes, and systemic support.
Conclusion: Faculty members widely utilize chatbots for content creation, article writing, and disease diagnosis, noting that these tools can help accelerate educational and research processes.
Keywords:
| | Full-Text (HTML) (35 Views)
References
1. Sadoughi F, Sheikhtaheri A, Meydani Z, Shahmoradi L. Knowledge-based systems and artificial intelligence. Management information systems (concepts, structure, development and evaluation). Tehran: Jafari Publication; 2010. [Persian] [Link]
2. Milana M, Brandi U, Hodge S, Hoggan-Kloubert T. Artificial intelligence (AI), conversational agents, and generative AI: Implications for adult education practice and research. Int J Lifelong Educ. 2024;43(1):1-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/02601370.2024.2310448]
3. Wartman SA, Combs CD. Medical education must move from the information age to the age of artificial intelligence. Acad Med. 2018;93(8):1107-9. [Link] [DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000002044]
4. Paranjape K, Schinkel M, Panday RN, Car J, Nanayakkara P. Introducing artificial intelligence training in medical education. JMIR Med Educ. 2019;5(2):e16048. [Link] [DOI:10.2196/16048]
5. Gordon M, Daniel M, Ajiboye A, Uraiby H, Xu NY, Bartlett R, et al. A scoping review of artificial intelligence in medical education: BEME Guide No. 84. Med Teach. 2024;46(4):446-70. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2024.2314198]
6. Nevárez Montes J, Elizondo-Garcia J. Faculty acceptance and use of generative artificial intelligence in their practice. Front Educ. 2025;10:1427450. [Link] [DOI:10.3389/feduc.2025.1427450]
7. Gayed JM. Educators' perspective on artificial intelligence: Equity, preparedness, and development. Cogent Educ. 2025;12(1):2447169. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2024.2447169]
8. Uygun D. Teachers' perspectives on artificial intelligence in education. Adv Mob Learn Educ Res. 2024;4(1):931-9. [Link] [DOI:10.25082/AMLER.2024.01.005]
9. Graham A. ChatGPT and other AI tools put students at risk of plagiarism allegations, MDU warns. BMJ. 2023;381:1133. [Link] [DOI:10.1136/bmj.p1133]
10. Livberber T, Ayvaz S. The impact of Artificial Intelligence in academia: Views of Turkish academics on ChatGPT. Heliyon. 2023;9(9). [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19688]
11. Malik AR, Pratiwi Y, Andajani K, Numertayasa IW, Suharti S, Darwis A et al. Exploring artificial intelligence in academic essay: Higher education student's perspective. Int J Educ Res Open. 2023;5:100296. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100296]
12. Ventayen RJM. ChatGPT by OpenAI: Students' viewpoint on cheating using artificial intelligence-based application. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4361548. [Link]
13. Kyngäs H, Mikkonen K, Kääriäinen M. The application of content analysis in nursing science research. Cham: Springer; 2020. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-30199-6]
14. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277-88. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/1049732305276687]
15. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105-12. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001]
16. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Criteria for assessing naturalistic inquiries as reports. 1988. [Link]
17. Garg T. Artificial intelligence in medical education. Am J Med. 2020;133(2):e68. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.08.017]
18. Chan LK, Pawlina W. Artificial intelligence or natural stupidity? Deep learning or superficial teaching?. Anat Sci Educ. 2020;13(1):5-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/ase.1936]
19. Tlili A, Shehata B, Adarkwah MA, Bozkurt A, Hickey DT, Huang R, et al. What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learn Environ. 2023;10(1):15. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x]
20. Duong MT, Rauschecker AM, Rudie JD, Chen PH, Cook TS, Bryan RN, et al. Artificial intelligence for precision education in radiology. Br J Radiol. 2019;92(1103):20190389. [Link] [DOI:10.1259/bjr.20190389]
21. Khidir MM, Sa'ari S. Chatbot as an educational support system. EPRA Int J Multidiscip Res. 2022;8:182-5. [Link] [DOI:10.36713/epra10328]
22. Dave M, Patel N. Artificial intelligence in healthcare and education. Br Dent J. 2023;234(10):761-4. [Link] [DOI:10.1038/s41415-023-5845-2]
23. Gimpel H, Hall K, Decker S, Eymann T, Lämmermann L, Mädche A, et al. Unlocking the power of generative AI models and systems such as GPT-4 and ChatGPT for higher education: A guide for students and lecturers. Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences; 2023. [Link]
24. Subaveerapandiyan A, Radhakrishnan S, Tiwary N, Guangul SM. Student satisfaction with artificial intelligence chatbots in Ethiopian academia. IFLA J. 2024;51(3):600-14. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/03400352241252974]
25. Liyanage H, Liaw ST, Jonnagaddala J, Schreiber R, Kuziemsky C, Terry AL, et al. Artificial intelligence in primary health care: Perceptions, issues, and challenges. Yearb Med Inform. 2019;28(1):41-6. [Link] [DOI:10.1055/s-0039-1677901]
26. Sun L, Yin C, Xu Q, Zhao W. Artificial intelligence for healthcare and medical education: A systematic review. Am J Transl Res. 2023;15(7):4820. [Link]
27. García-Vigil JL. Reflections around ethics, human intelligence and artificial intelligence. GACETA MEDICA DE MEXICO. 2021;157(3):298-301. [Link] [DOI:10.24875/GMM.M21000561]
28. Briganti G, Le Moine O. Artificial intelligence in medicine: Today and tomorrow. Front Med. 2020;7:509744. [Link] [DOI:10.3389/fmed.2020.00027]
29. Labadze L, Grigolia M, Machaidze L. Role of AI chatbots in education: Systematic literature review. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2023;20(1):56. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s41239-023-00426-1]
30. Ejaz H, McGrath H, Wong BL, Guise A, Vercauteren T, Shapey J. Artificial intelligence and medical education: A global mixed-methods study of medical students' perspectives. Digit Health. 2022;8:20552076221089099. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/20552076221089099]
31. Weidener L, Fischer M. Artificial intelligence in medicine: Cross-sectional study among medical students on application, education, and ethical aspects. JMIR Med Educ. 2024;10(1):e51247. [Link] [DOI:10.2196/51247]
32. Omar A, Shaqour AZ, Khlaif ZN. Attitudes of faculty members in Palestinian universities toward employing artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Opportunities and challenges. Front Educ. 2024;9. [Link] [DOI:10.3389/feduc.2024.1414606]
33. Iqbal S, Ahmad S, Akkour K, Wafa ANA, AlMutairi HM, Aldhufairi AM. Impact of artificial intelligence in medical education. MedEdPublish. 2021;10:41. [Link] [DOI:10.15694/mep.2021.000041.1]
Send email to the article author