Acceptance of AI-Powered Chatbots Among Physiotherapy Students: International Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence-powered chatbots (AI-PCs) are increasingly integrated into educational settings, including health care disciplines. Despite their potential to enhance learning, limited research has investigated physiotherapy (PT) students' acceptance of this technology. Objective: This study aims to assess undergraduate PT students' acceptance of AI-PCs and to identify personal, academic, and technological factors influencing their acceptance. Methods: Over a 4-month period, a cross-sectional survey was conducted across 7 PT programs in 5 countries. Eligible participants were national undergraduate PT students. The technology acceptance model (TAM)-based questionnaire was used for capturing perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude, behavioral intention, and actual behavioral use of AI-PCs. The influence of personal, academic, and technological factors was examined. Descriptive and inferential statistics were conducted. Results: The mean total TAM score was 3.59 (SD 0.82), indicating moderate acceptance. Of the 1066 participants, 375 (35.2%) showed high acceptance, 650 (60.9%) moderate, and 41 (3.9%) low. Prior experience with artificial intelligence (AI) tools emerged as the strongest predictor of acceptance (β=.43; P<.001), followed by university affiliation (ANOVA P<.001). Cumulative grade point average percentage was positively correlated with TAM score (r=0.135; P<.001) but was not a significant predictor in regression (P=.23). Age (P=.54), sex (P=.56), academic level (P=.26), and current use of AI-PCs (P=.10) were not significant predictors. Conclusions: PT students demonstrated moderate acceptance of AI-PCs. Prior technological experience was the strongest predictor, underscoring the importance of early exposure to AI tools. Educational institutions should consider integrating AI technologies to enhance students' familiarity and foster positive attitudes toward their use.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".