Cited by 51Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAcademic integrity and plagiarismArtificial Intelligence in Education

Generative artificial intelligence (Gen-AI) in pharmacy education: Utilization and implications for academic integrity: A scoping review

Open access
Mortlock, R., Lucas, C.·2024·Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100481

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. [5]Qureshi R. AI in drug discovery and its clinical relevance Heliyon 9 7 2023 e17575 PMC10302550 37396052
  2. [7]Paul D. Artificial intelligence in drug discovery and development Drug Discov Today 26 1 2021 80 93 33099022 PMC7577280
  3. [8]Vidhya K.S. Artificial Intelligence’s impact on drug discovery and development from bench to bedside Cureus 15 10 2023 e47486 PMC10597591 37881323
  4. [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
  5. [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
  6. [11]Raza M.A. Artificial intelligence (AI) in pharmacy: an overview of innovations Innov Pharm 13 2 2022 PMC9836757 36654703
  7. [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
  8. [17]Nakagawa N. Communication training for pharmacy students with standard patients using artificial intelligence Curr Pharm Teach Learn 14 7 2022 854 862 35914846
  9. [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
  10. [21]Alkaissi H. McFarlane S.I. Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing Cureus 15 2 2023 e35179 PMC9939079 36811129
  11. [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
  12. [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
  13. [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
  14. [26]Giordano C. Accessing artificial intelligence for clinical decision-making Front Digit Health 3 2021 645232 PMC8521931 34713115
  15. [32]Peters M.D. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews Int J Evid Based Healthc 13 3 2015 141 146 26134548
  16. [37]Lucas C. Desselle S. Considerations in conducting a scoping review in pharmacy education Explorat Res Clin Soc Pharm 14 2024 100448 PMC11088334 38737524
  17. [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
  18. [41]Innovation, V.H Covidence systematic review software 2024
  19. [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
  20. [45]Schutz N. ASHP statement on the use of artificial intelligence in pharmacy Am J Health-Syst Pharm 77 23 2020 2015 2018 32918073
  21. [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
  22. [51]Abdel Aziz M.H. A scoping review of artificial intelligence within pharmacy education Am J Pharm Educ 88 1 2024 100615 37914030
  23. [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
  24. [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
  25. [57]Elsevier Publishing Ethics cited 2024; Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/en-au/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics 2023
  26. [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
  27. [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
  28. [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
  29. [68]Abdel Aziz M.H. A scoping review of artificial intelligence within pharmacy education Am J Pharm Educ 88 1 2024 100615 37914030
  30. [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
  31. [71]McArthur J. Rethinking authentic assessment: work, well-being, and society High Educ 85 1 2023 85 101 PMC8853385 35194229
  32. [75]Levac D. Colquhoun H. O’Brien K.K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology Implement Sci 5 1 2010 69 20854677 PMC2954944
  33. [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

Authors
Mortlock, R., & Lucas, C.
Affiliations
University of Technology Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Mortlock, R.
Venue
Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-09
Volume
15
Pages
100481
ISSN
2667-2766 (ISSN-L)
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
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