Open Access


Read more
image01

Online Manuscript Submission


Read more
image01

Submitted Manuscript Trail


Read more
image01

Online Payment


Read more
image01

Online Subscription


Read more
image01

Email Alert



Read more
image01

Original Research Article | OPEN ACCESS

Exploring the awareness, perceptions, and beliefs towards artificial intelligence chatbots and ChatGPT among academicians and students in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study

Yaser M Alahmadi , Haifa A Fadil

Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, Taibah University, Madinah, KSA;

For correspondence:-    

Received: 18 September 2024        Accepted: 8 March 2025        Published: 30 March 2025

Citation: Alahmadi YM, Fadil HA. Exploring the awareness, perceptions, and beliefs towards artificial intelligence chatbots and ChatGPT among academicians and students in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study. Trop J Pharm Res 2025; 24(3):403-409 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v24i3.13

© 2025 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the awareness, perceptions and beliefs of healthcare academicians and students towards ChatGPT and other similar artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted over a period of four months in 2024 and involved healthcare students and academicians in Saudi Arabia. To examine respondents' awareness, attitudes and beliefs about ChatGPT, a standardized pre-validated questionnaire was administered. Results: Three hundred and ninety-two healthcare students completed the survey. Among the surveyed respondents, 350 (89.3 %) were students and 26 (6.6 %) were assistant professors. More than half of the respondents claimed that they were familiar with computer skills while 174 (44.4 %) were familiar with the term "ChatGPT". Among respondents, 70.7 % believed ChatGPT would increase productivity and 69.4 % thought it could positively influence education. In addition, almost two-thirds of them were comfortable using ChatGPT in healthcare practice. Most (71.2 %) of the respondents revealed that ChatGPT is deemed untrustworthy while 83.4 % expressed concern about the model's potential to provide inaccurate or harmful recommendations. Conclusion: This study shows varying levels of awareness of ChatGPT among respondents. Furthermore, about half of the respondents using ChatGPT show positive beliefs and agree that language models would increase productivity and positively influence education.

Keywords: ChatGPT, Language models, Productivity, Healthcare students, Academics, Assignments

Impact Factor
Thompson Reuters (ISI): 0.6 (2023)
H-5 index (Google Scholar): 49 (2023)

Article Tools

Share this article with



Article status: Free
Fulltext in PDF
Similar articles in Google
Similar article in this Journal:

Archives

2025; 24: 
1,   2,   3
2024; 23: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2023; 22: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2022; 21: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2021; 20: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2020; 19: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2019; 18: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2018; 17: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2017; 16: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2016; 15: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2015; 14: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2014; 13: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2013; 12: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2012; 11: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2011; 10: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2010; 9: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2009; 8: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2008; 7: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2007; 6: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2006; 5: 
1,   2
2005; 4: 
1,   2
2004; 3: 
1
2003; 2: 
1,   2
2002; 1: 
1,   2

News Updates