Cited by 32Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationPharmacy and Medical PracticesElectronic Health Records Systems

Evaluation of community pharmacists’ perceptions and willingness to integrate ChatGPT into their pharmacy practice: A study from Jordan

Abu-Farha, Rana, Fino, Leen, Al-Ashwal, Fahmi Y., Zawiah, Mohammed, Gharaibeh, Lobna, Harahsheh, Mea’ad M., Darwish Elhajji, Feras·2023·Journal of the American Pharmacists Association

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to examine the extent of community pharmacists' awareness of Chat Generative Pretraining Transformer (ChatGPT), their willingness to embark on this new development of artificial intelligence (AI) development, and barriers that face the incorporation of this nonconventional source of information into pharmacy practice. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among community pharmacists in Jordanian cities between April 26, 2023, and May 10, 2023. Convenience and snowball sampling techniques were used to select study participants owing to resource and time constraints. The questionnaire was distributed by research assistants through popular social media platforms. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess predictors affecting their willingness to use this service in the future. Results A total of 221 community pharmacists participated in the current study (response rate was not calculated because opt-in recruitment strategies were used). Remarkably, nearly half of the pharmacists (n = 107, 48.4%) indicated a willingness to incorporate the ChatGPT into their pharmacy practice. Nearly half of the pharmacists (n = 105, 47.5%) demonstrated a high perceived benefit score for ChatGPT, whereas approximately 37% of pharmacists (n = 81) expressed a high concern score about ChatGPT. More than 70% of pharmacists believed that ChatGPT lacked the ability to use human judgment and make complicated ethical judgments in its responses (n = 168). Finally, logistics regression analysis showed that pharmacists who had previous experience in using ChatGPT were more willing to integrate ChatGPT in their pharmacy practice than those with no previous experience in using ChatGPT (odds ratio 2.312, P = 0.035). Conclusion Although pharmacists show a willingness to incorporate ChatGPT into their practice, especially those with previous experience, there are major concerns. These mainly revolve around the tool's ability to make human-like judgments and ethical decisions. These findings are crucial for the future development and integration of AI tools in pharmacy practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.japh.2023.08.020

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 31 · Cited by 32

Authors
Abu-Farha, R., Fino, L., Al-Ashwal, F. Y., Zawiah, M., Gharaibeh, L., Harahsheh, M. M., & Darwish Elhajji, F.
Venue
Journal of the American Pharmacists Association
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-11
Volume
63
Issue
6
Pages
1761-1767.e2
ISSN
1544-3191 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386210491
Cited by
32
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Pharmacists Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
ChatGPT, generative AI, community pharmacists, pharmacist perceptions, technology adoption, willingness to use AI, AI adoption barriers, AI ethics, human judgment, pharmacy practice, Jordan
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Attitude of Health Personnel, Community Pharmacy Services, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Jordan, Pharmacists, Pharmacy, Professional Role

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review