Generative artificial intelligence (Gen-AI) in pharmacy education: Utilization and implications for academic integrity: A scoping review
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: Generative artificial intelligence (Gen-AI), exemplified by the widely adopted ChatGPT, has garnered significant attention in recent years. Its application spans various health education domains, including pharmacy, where its potential benefits and drawbacks have become increasingly apparent. Despite the growing adoption of Gen-AIsuch as ChatGPT in pharmacy education, there remains a critical need to assess and mitigate associated risks. This review exploresthe literature and potential strategies for mitigating risks associated with the integration of Gen-AI in pharmacy education. Aim: To conduct a scoping review to identify implications of Gen-AI in pharmacy education, identify its use and emerging evidence, with a particular focus on strategies which mitigate potential risks to academic integrity. Methods: A scoping review strategy was employed in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Databases searched includedPubMed, ERIC [Education Resources Information Center], Scopus and ProQuestfrom August 2023 to 20 February 2024 and included all relevant records from 1 January 2000 to 20 February 2024 relating specifically to LLM use within pharmacy education. A grey literature search was also conducted due to the emerging nature of this topic. Policies, procedures, and documents from institutions such as universities and colleges, including standards, guidelines, and policy documents, were hand searched and reviewed in their most updated form. These documents were not published in the scientific literature or indexed in academic search engines. Results: = 9) derived from the grey literature. Potential use and benefits of Gen-AI within pharmacy education were identified in all included published articles however there was a paucity of published articles related the degree of consideration to the potential risks to academic integrity. Grey literature recordsheld the largest proportion of risk mitigation strategies largely focusing on increased academic and student education and training relating to the ethical use of Gen-AI as well considerations for redesigning of current assessments likely to be a risk for Gen-AI use to academic integrity. Conclusion: Drawing upon existing literature, this review highlights the importance of evidence-based approaches to address the challenges posed by Gen-AI such as ChatGPT in pharmacy education settings. Additionally, whilst mitigation strategies are suggested, primarily drawn from the grey literature, there is a paucity of traditionally published scientific literature outlining strategies for the practical and ethical implementation of Gen-AI within pharmacy education. Further research related to the responsible and ethical use of Gen-AIin pharmacy curricula; and studies related to strategies adopted to mitigate risks to academic integrity would be beneficial.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Empirical studies documenting infiltration of AI-generated text within specific disciplines remain largely fragmented across different levels of analysis.
“Empirical studies have begun to document the infiltration of AI-generated text within specific disciplines (Mortlock & Lucas, 2024; Yao et al., 2025), but such research remains largely fragmented across different levels of analysis.”
From The Attention Mismatch: Mapping the Structural Academic Governance Deficit in the Age of Generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Mortlock & Lucas, 2024
The Introduction discusses concern about AI use in academic writing, while the Discussion says discipline-specific research on AI’s impact in pharmacy education is lacking. Neither passage documents empirical studies finding AI-generated text within a discipline. A search for such studies and for fragmentation across levels of analysis found no passage addressing those points. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565 · see citing works
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223 · cited 1× · see citing works
“36,75,76 Whilst this scoping review strategy has explored the ways in which Gen-AI may impact the training, education, and particularly the learning and assessment procedures associated with pharmacy education, it is important to consider that only official or recognized versions of these…”
BackgroundThe PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 · Cited by 13,874 · see citing works
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x · Cited by 11,385 · cited 2× · see citing works
“29 In particular, to identify the current knowledge gaps, in terms of its diverse use, potential benefits, shortcomings and impact on pharmacy education.”
BackgroundUpdated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00167 · Cited by 7,751 · see citing works
JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis
(2020) · JBI eBooks · doi:10.46658/jbimes-20-01 · Cited by 4,165 · see citing works
Sallam, M. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11060887 · Cited by 3,126 · cited 1× · see citing works
“15,18,44,48,56,60,66,67 68 – 72 By challenging students to engage in critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making processes, educators can align assessments to accurately reflect a students ’ cognitive abilities and professional readiness.”
BackgroundRay, P. P. (2023) · Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems · doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 · Cited by 2,463 · see citing works
A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning
Chan, C. K. Y. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3 · Cited by 1,577 · cited 4× · see citing works
“15,18,44,48,56,60,66,67 68 – 72 By challenging students to engage in critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making processes, educators can align assessments to accurately reflect a students ’ cognitive abilities and professional readiness.”
BackgroundInfluentialScoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Colquhoun, H., Garritty, C. M., Hempel, S., Horsley, T., Langlois, E. V., Lillie, E., O’Brien, K. K., Tunçalp, Ӧ., et al. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3 · Cited by 887 · see citing works
Do as AI say: susceptibility in deployment of clinical decision-aids
Gaube, S., Suresh, H., Raue, M., Merritt, A., Berkowitz, S. J., Lermer, E., Coughlin, J. F., Guttag, J. V., Colak, E., & Ghassemi, M. (2021) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00385-9 · Cited by 543 · cited 1× · see citing works
“26,27 Conversely, some academics believe that embracing the use of Gen-AIwithin pharmacy education may enhance students ’ critical thinking by engaging students to address the flaws in the parser outputs (the output from the AI tool generated by the human prompt)of some AI bots as well as…”
BackgroundSallam, M., Salim, N., Barakat, M., & Al-Tammemi, A. (2023) · Narra J · doi:10.52225/narra.v3i1.103 · Cited by 331 · see citing works
Academic integrity and artificial intelligence: is ChatGPT hype, hero or heresy?
Currie, G. M. (2023) · Seminars in Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2023.04.008 · Cited by 283 · see citing works
Hamid, H., Zulkifli, K., Naimat, F., Che Yaacob, N. L., & Ng, K. W. (2023) · Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2023.10.001 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
ChatGPT and Clinical Training: Perception, Concerns, and Practice of Pharm-D Students
Zawiah, M., Al-Ashwal, F., Gharaibeh, L., Abu Farha, R., Alzoubi, K., Abu Hammour, K., Qasim, Q. A., & Abrah, F. (2023) · Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare · doi:10.2147/jmdh.s439223 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- [5]Qureshi R. AI in drug discovery and its clinical relevance Heliyon 9 7 2023 e17575 PMC10302550 37396052
- [7]Paul D. Artificial intelligence in drug discovery and development Drug Discov Today 26 1 2021 80 93 33099022 PMC7577280
- [8]Vidhya K.S. Artificial Intelligence’s impact on drug discovery and development from bench to bedside Cureus 15 10 2023 e47486 PMC10597591 37881323
- [9]Aidan G. How does ChatGPT perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)? The Implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge assessment JMIR Med Educ 9 2023 e45312 36753318 PMC9947764
- [10]Chalasani S.H. Artificial intelligence in the field of pharmacy practice: a literature review Explorat Res Clin Soc Pharm 12 2023 100346 PMC10598710 37885437
- [11]Raza M.A. Artificial intelligence (AI) in pharmacy: an overview of innovations Innov Pharm 13 2 2022 PMC9836757 36654703
- [15]Lim A.S. What's been trending with OSCEs in pharmacy education over the last 20 years? A bibliometric review and content analysis Curr Pharm Teach Learn 16 3 2024 212 220 38171979
- [17]Nakagawa N. Communication training for pharmacy students with standard patients using artificial intelligence Curr Pharm Teach Learn 14 7 2022 854 862 35914846
- [19]Weidmann A.E. Artificial intelligence in academic writing and clinical pharmacy education: consequences and opportunities Int J Clin Pharm 46 2024 741 754 PMC11133206 38472596
- [21]Alkaissi H. McFarlane S.I. Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing Cureus 15 2 2023 e35179 PMC9939079 36811129
- [23]Mantzourani E. The role of reflective practice in healthcare professions: next steps for pharmacy education and practice Res Social Adm Pharm 15 12 2019 1476 1479 30926252
- [24]Tsingos-Lucas C. The effect of reflective activities on reflective thinking ability in an undergraduate pharmacy curriculum Am J Pharm Educ 80 4 2016 65 27293232 PMC4891863
- [25]Tsingos C. Bosnic-Anticevich S. Smith L. Reflective practice and its implications for pharmacy education Am J Pharm Educ 78 1 2014 18 24558286 PMC3930242
- [26]Giordano C. Accessing artificial intelligence for clinical decision-making Front Digit Health 3 2021 645232 PMC8521931 34713115
- [32]Peters M.D. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews Int J Evid Based Healthc 13 3 2015 141 146 26134548
- [37]Lucas C. Desselle S. Considerations in conducting a scoping review in pharmacy education Explorat Res Clin Soc Pharm 14 2024 100448 PMC11088334 38737524
- [40]Godin K. Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: a case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada Syst Rev 4 1 2015 138 26494010 PMC4619264
- [41]Innovation, V.H Covidence systematic review software 2024
- [42]Huang X. Evaluating the performance of ChatGPT in clinical pharmacy: a comparative study of ChatGPT and clinical pharmacists Br J Clin Pharmacol 90 1 2024 232 238 37626010
- [45]Schutz N. ASHP statement on the use of artificial intelligence in pharmacy Am J Health-Syst Pharm 77 23 2020 2015 2018 32918073
- [50]Patel C.R. Pandya S.K. Sojitra B.M. Perspectives of ChatGPT in pharmacology education, and research in health care: a narrative review J Pharmacol Pharmacother 14 3 2023 171 177
- [51]Abdel Aziz M.H. A scoping review of artificial intelligence within pharmacy education Am J Pharm Educ 88 1 2024 100615 37914030
- [52]Cain J. Malcom D.R. Aungst T.D. The role of artificial intelligence in the future of pharmacy education Am J Pharm Educ 87 10 2023 100135 37852692
- [55]Wang Y.-M. Shen H.-W. Chen T.-J. Performance of ChatGPT on the pharmacist licensing examination in Taiwan J Chin Med Assoc 86 7 2023 PMC12755457 37227901
- [57]Elsevier Publishing Ethics cited 2024; Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/en-au/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics 2023
- [60]Ranchon F. Development of artificial intelligence powered apps and tools for clinical pharmacy services: a systematic review Int J Med Inform 172 2023 104983 36724730
- [61]Hamid H. Exploratory study on student perception on the use of chat AI in process-driven problem-based learning Curr Pharm Teach Learn 15 12 2023 1017 1025 37923639
- [67]Sallam M. ChatGPT applications in medical, dental, pharmacy, and public health education: a descriptive study highlighting the advantages and limitations Narra J 3 2023 e103 PMC10914078 38450035
- [68]Abdel Aziz M.H. A scoping review of artificial intelligence within pharmacy education Am J Pharm Educ 88 1 2024 100615 37914030
- [69]Alqahtani T. The emergent role of artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, and large language models in higher education and research Res Social Adm Pharm 19 8 2023 1236 1242 37321925
- [71]McArthur J. Rethinking authentic assessment: work, well-being, and society High Educ 85 1 2023 85 101 PMC8853385 35194229
- [75]Levac D. Colquhoun H. O’Brien K.K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology Implement Sci 5 1 2010 69 20854677 PMC2954944
- [76]Tricco A.C. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation Ann Intern Med 169 7 2018 467 473 30178033
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Guo, Z., Mao, H., & Zhang, F. (2026) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications14020027
“Empirical studies have begun to document the infiltration of AI-generated text within specific disciplines (Mortlock & Lucas, 2024; Yao et al., 2025), but such research remains largely fragmented across different levels of analysis.”
- Authors
- Mortlock, R., & Lucas, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Technology Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Mortlock, R.
- ORCID
- Lucas, C.
- Venue
- Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-09
- Volume
- 15
- Pages
- 100481
- ISSN
- 2667-2766 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11341932
- OpenAlex
- W4400767631
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 5
- FWCI
- 4.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- generative AI, ChatGPT, pharmacy education, academic integrity, large language models, risk mitigation strategies, assessment redesign, ethical use of AI, AI hallucination, algorithmic bias
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