Health Care Students’ Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence: Countrywide Survey in Canada (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a futuristic concept; it is increasingly being integrated into health care. As studies on attitudes toward AI have primarily focused on physicians, there is a need to assess the perspectives of students across health care disciplines to inform future curriculum development. OBJECTIVE This study aims to explore and identify gaps in the knowledge that Canadian health care students have regarding AI, capture how health care students in different fields differ in their knowledge and perspectives on AI, and present student-identified ways that AI literacy may be incorporated into the health care curriculum. METHODS The survey was developed from a narrative literature review of topics in attitudinal surveys on AI. The final survey comprised 15 items, including multiple-choice questions, pick-group-rank questions, 11-point Likert scale items, slider scale questions, and narrative questions. We used snowball and convenience sampling methods by distributing an email with a description and a link to the web-based survey to representatives from 18 Canadian schools. RESULTS A total of 2167 students across 10 different health professions from 18 universities across Canada responded to the survey. Overall, 78.77% (1707/2167) predicted that AI technology would affect their careers within the coming decade and 74.5% (1595/2167) reported a positive outlook toward the emerging role of AI in their respective fields. Attitudes toward AI varied by discipline. Students, even those opposed to AI, identified the need to incorporate a basic understanding of AI into their curricula. CONCLUSIONS We performed a nationwide survey of health care students across 10 different health professions in Canada. The findings would inform student-identified topics within AI and their preferred delivery formats, which would advance education across different health care professions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".