Attitudes and Perceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in the Scientific Process of Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Research: A Large-Scale, International Cross-Sectional Survey
Ng, J. Y.; Tan, J.; Syed, N.; Adapa, K.; Gupta, P. K.; Li, S.; Mehta, D.; Ring, M.; Shridhar, M.; Souza, J. P.; Yoshino, T.; Lee, M. S.; Cramer, H.
Show abstract
BackgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (GenAI) chatbots have shown utility in assisting with various research tasks. Traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) is a patient-centric approach that emphasizes holistic well-being. The integration of TCIM and GenAI presents numerous key opportunities. However, TCIM researchers attitudes toward GenAI tools remain less understood. This large-scale, international cross-sectional survey aimed to elucidate the attitudes and perceptions of TCIM researchers regarding the use of GenAI chatbots in the scientific process. MethodsA search strategy in Ovid MEDLINE identified corresponding authors who were TCIM researchers. Eligible authors were invited to complete an anonymous online survey administered via SurveyMonkey. The survey included questions on socio-demographic characteristics, familiarity with GenAI chatbots, and perceived benefits and challenges of using GenAI chatbots. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis. ResultsThe survey received 716 responses. Most respondents reported familiarity with GenAI chatbots (58.08%) and viewed them as very important to the future of scientific research (54.37%). The most acknowledged benefits included workload reduction (74.07%) and increased efficiency in data analysis/experimentation (71.14%). The most frequently reported challenges involved bias, errors, and limitations. More than half of the respondents (57.02%) expressed a need for training to use GenAI chatbots in the scientific process, alongside an interest in receiving training (72.07%). However, 43.67% indicated that their institutions did not offer these programs. ConclusionBy developing a deeper understanding of TCIM researchers perspectives, future AI applications in this field can be more informed, and guide future policies and collaboration among researchers.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Ethical review of clinical research with generative AI: Evaluating ChatGPT’s accuracy and reproducibility 96%
- The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review 95%
- Diversity and inclusion: A hidden additional benefit of Open Data 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating the Nature of Open Science Practices Across Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An Audit 97%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 95%
- Common misconceptions held by health researchers when interpreting linear regression assumptions, a cross-sectional study 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Scientific hypothesis generation process in clinical research: a secondary data analytic tool versus experience study protocol 96%
- Strategies and Tools for electronic health records and physician workflow alignment: A scoping review protocol 95%
- Exposure to and engagement with digital psychoeducational content and community related to maternal mental health by perinatal persons and mothers: design of an online survey with optional follow-up and participant characteristics 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based Chatbots in Promoting Health Behavioral Changes: A Systematic Review 95%
- Improving Patient Engagement in Phase 2 Clinical Trials with a Trial-specific Patient Decision Aid (tPDA): A Development and Usability Study 94%
- Health indicators as a measure of individual health status: public perspectives 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.