Cited by 38Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AITechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

RETRACTED: Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices of General Population Toward Utilizing ChatGPT: A Cross-sectional Study

Open access
Bodani, Nikita, Lal, Abhishek, Maqsood, Afsheen, Altamash, Sara, Ahmed, Naseer, Heboyan, Artak·2023·Sage Open

Abstract

ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence-based program, has been used by numerous users in various fields. This study aimed to determine to knowledge, attitude, and practices of the general population toward the use of ChatGPT. We invited the general population residing in Karachi, Pakistan from January to March 2023 in the study. The invitees participated in this study by filling out an online questionnaire through various social media platforms. The questionnaire assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the general population toward ChatGPT. We recruited a total of 525 participants for the study. The average age of the participants was 27.7 ± 0.46. The results indicated that 400 (76.2%) of the participants were familiar with ChatGPT. Although 51.4% of the participants did not use ChatGPT frequently, 50.1% believed that utilizing ChatGPT could potentially diminish their cognitive abilities. Nevertheless, a significant number of participants (40.0%) did not express concern about encountering privacy and security issues while using ChatGPT. The gender and education level were statistically significant predictors of the ChatGPT practices, while age and occupation did not had a significant impact. In conclusion, the study showed that a majority of participants were familiar with ChatGPT and believed in its ability to understand and respond to user queries. They also had confidence in the accuracy of information provided by ChatGPT, indicating a moderate level of trust. Int…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/21582440231211079This paper is marked retracted.

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 12 · Cited by 38

Authors
Bodani, N., Lal, A., Maqsood, A., Altamash, S., Ahmed, N., & Heboyan, A.
Affiliations
  • Altamash Institute of Dental Medicine (PK)
  • Aga Khan University (PK)
  • Bahria University (PK)
  • Yerevan State Medical University (AM)
Corresponding author
Heboyan, Artak
Venue
Sage Open
Published
2023-10
Volume
13
Issue
4
ISSN
2158-2440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4389050497
Cited by
38
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 15
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Status
Retracted
Open access
Locations
  • SAGE Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • 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 › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
ChatGPT, generative AI, public knowledge and attitudes, trust in AI, privacy and security concerns, general population

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