Cited by 57Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in EducationInnovations in Medical Education

Old Dog, New Tricks? Exploring the Potential Functionalities of ChatGPT in Supporting Educational Methods in Social Psychiatry

Smith, Alexander, Hachen, Stefanie, Schleifer, Roman, Bhugra, Dinesh, Buadze, Anna, Liebrenz, Michael·2023·International Journal of Social Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Artificial Intelligence is ever-expanding and large-language models are increasingly shaping teaching and learning experiences. ChatGPT is a prominent recent example of this technology and has generated much debate around the benefits and disadvantages of chatbots in educational domains. AIM: This study seeks to demonstrate the possible use-cases of ChatGPT in supporting educational methods specific to social psychiatry. METHODS: Through interactions with ChatGPT 3.5, we asked this technology to list six ways in which it could aid social psychiatry teaching. Subsequently, we requested that ChatGPT perform one of the tasks it identified in its responses. FINDINGS: ChatGPT highlighted several roles it could fulfil in educational settings, including as an information provider, a tool for debates and discussions, a facilitator of self-directed learning and a content-creator for course materials. For the latter scenario, based on another prompt, ChatGPT generated a hypothetical case vignette for a topic relevant to social psychiatry. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our experiences, ChatGPT can be an effective teaching tool, offering opportunities for active and case-based learning for students and instructors in social psychiatry. However, in their current form, chatbots have several limitations that must be considered, including misinformation and inherent biases, although these may only be temporary in nature as these technologies continue to advance. Accordingly, we argue that large-language models can support social psychiatry education with appropriate caution and encourage educators to become attuned to their potential through further detailed research in this area.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/00207640231178451

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, A., Hachen, S., Schleifer, R., Bhugra, D., Buadze, A., & Liebrenz, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Smith, Alexander
Venue
International Journal of Social Psychiatry
Published
2023-06-30
Volume
69
Issue
8
Pages
1882-1889
ISSN
  • 0020-7640 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2854
OpenAlex
W4382776712
Cited by
57
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 7
FWCI
2.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Social Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, educational chatbots, case-based learning, self-directed learning, misinformation, algorithmic bias, medical education technology
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Community Psychiatry, Educational Status, Humans, Language, Students

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