Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
O USO DO ChatGPT POR PROFISSIONAIS E ESTUDANTES DA ÁREA DA SAÚDE: UMA REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA
0
Zitationen
4
Autoren
2025
Jahr
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly present in several sectors, including medicine, where it offers advances in the understanding and treatment of diseases.However, generative AI raises concerns about accuracy and ethics in the context of health education.Method: This is a systematic literature review, using the PRISMA methodology guidelines.The bibliographic search was carried out in the electronic databases Medline (via PubMed), Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) and Scopus.The search was carried out in May 2024, using descriptors in English and Portuguese, such as "ChatGPT AND 'health professions education'", "ChatGPT AND 'health education'", "ChatGPT AND 'educao dos profissionais de sade'" and "ChatGPT AND 'educao em sade'".Results: Of the 82 initial studies, 8 were included in this systematic review.The selected studies varied widely in terms of methodological design, participants and approaches used to explore the use of ChatGPT in health education.The findings were separated and discussed in the sessions on health education for professionals in the field and health education for the public.Final considerations: AI in health education offers significant benefits, but requires balanced and ethical use to complement, not replace, human knowledge.Future research should focus on the improvement and responsible use of these technologies.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit
2008 · 8.736 Zit.
Determination and Quantification Of Content Validity
1986 · 6.219 Zit.
The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? critique and recommendations
2006 · 6.130 Zit.
Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models
2012 · 5.850 Zit.
Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations
2007 · 4.770 Zit.