Evaluation of community pharmacists’ perceptions and willingness to integrate ChatGPT into their pharmacy practice: A study from Jordan
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A handful of studies could be clearly assigned as natural language processing models or rule-based expert systems.
“A handful of studies could be clearly assigned as “natural language processing models” [29–32] or “rule-based expert systems” [33–36].”
Professionals believe that AI would increase their efficiency in managing medical information and knowledge, by being granted quick access to vast amounts of knowledge with the ability to scan and summarize relevant information effectively, or being able to handle big-data records in real-time.
“Furthermore, the professionals believe that AI would increase their efficiency in managing medical information and knowledge, by being granted quick access to vast amounts of knowledge with the ability to scan and summarize relevant information effectively with the help of AI [29, 30, 46–49] or being able to handle big-data records in real-time [50, 51].”
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.
- ORCID
- 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