Cited by 41Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInnovations in Medical EducationHealth and Medical Education

Digital health understanding and preparedness of medical students: a cross-sectional study

Open access
Baumgartner, Martin, Sauer, Christoph, Blagec, Kathrin, Dorffner, Georg·2022·Medical Education Online

Abstract

Digitalisation is changing all areas of our daily life. This changing environment requires new competences from physicians in all specialities. This study systematically surveyed the knowledge, attitude, and interests of medical students. These results will help further develop the medical curriculum, as well as increase our understanding of future physicians by other healthcare market players. A web-based survey consisting of four sections was developed: Section one queried demographic data, section two assessed the current digital health knowledge of medical students, section three queried their attitudes about the future impact of digital health in medicine and section four assessed the recommendations medical students have for the medical curriculum in terms of digital health. This survey was distributed to all (11,978) student at all public Austrian medical schools. A total of 8.4% of the medical student population started the survey. At the knowledge self-assessment section, the medical students reached mean of 11.74 points (SD 4.42) out of a possible maximum of 32 (female mean 10.66/ SD 3.87, male mean 13.34/SD 4.50). The attitude section showed that students see digitalisation as a threat, especially with respect to the patient-physician relationship. The curriculum recommendation section showed a high interest for topics related to AI, a per study year increasing interest in impact of digital health in communication, as well as a decreasing interest in robotic related topics. The attitude towards digital health can be described as sceptical. To ensure that future physicians keep pace with this development and fulfil their responsibility towards the society, medical schools need to be more proactive to foster the understanding of medical students that digital health will persistently alter the medical practice.

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 · 10.1080/10872981.2022.2114851

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • Many medical students and junior physicians do not feel equipped to use digital health technologies and are keen to receive more training in this field.

    “This report is consistent with findings from multiple countries showing that many medical students and junior physicians do not feel equipped to use digital health technologies and are keen to receive more training in this field.[7][8][9][10][11][12]”

    From The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework (2025) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Discussion reports that medical students lack an overview of digital health applications and that two-thirds request additional digital communication training. The study surveyed Austrian medical students, not junior physicians, so it does not establish that part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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: 1

  1. [24]American Medical Association. (2020). Physicians’ motivations and requirements for adopting digital health adoption and attitudinal shifts from 2016 to 2019. [Cited 2021 Oct 29]. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-02/ama-digital-health-study.pdf. Archived at: http://web.archive.org/web/20211029155723/https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-02/ama-digital-health-study.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baumgartner, M., Sauer, C., Blagec, K., & Dorffner, G.
Affiliations
Medical University of Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
Baumgartner, Martin
Venue
Medical Education Online
Published
2022-08-28
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
2114851-2114851
ISSN
1087-2981 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4293382662
Cited by
39
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Education Online (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Austrian medical schools
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
Keywords
digital health, medical students, digital skills, medical curriculum, artificial intelligence in healthcare, robotic surgery, physician-patient relationship
MeSH terms
Austria, Cross-Sectional Studies, Curriculum, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Physician-Patient Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Schools, Medical, Students, Medical, Therapy, Computer-Assisted

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