Students’ Perceptions on Chatbots’ Potential and Design Characteristics in Healthcare Education
Open accessAbstract
Chatbots may have the potential to support healthcare education by enabling personalized learning. Trust is a pre-requisite for the users to accept the chatbots. In this study we analyzed students' assignments of the MSc course "User Needs, Requirements Engineering and Evaluation" at Karolinska Institutet, aiming to explore the chatbots' potential in healthcare education and the design characteristics of chatbots that may enhance the trust. The students identified two courses: pharmacology and medical law, that have the potential to leverage chatbots' characteristics. Our analyses on the design characteristics they suggested resulted in: recognition; visibility of system status; anthropomorphism in communication; knowledge expertise, linguistic consistency; realistic interaction. Our results are in line with previous research. Future studies could investigate the educational impact on the learning outcomes and students' satisfaction when interacting with chatbots.
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?
Chatbots improve the effect of self-directed learning as learners experience low levels of stress while engaging in conversations with a chatbot and repeated learning.
“It also improves the effect of self-directed learning as learners experience low levels of stress while engaging in conversations with a chatbot and repeated learning [5].”
From Analysis of the effect of an artificial intelligence chatbot educational program on non-face-to-face classes: a quasi-experimental study (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
The Introduction says chatbots may quiz students and contribute to personalized learning, and section 3.1 says they could help students memorize concepts. The paper does not report reduced stress or an observed improvement in self-directed learning; the Discussion says educational impact remains for future study. The passages in our copy do not provide page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAI chatbots in nursing education provide nursing students with various digital learning opportunities.
“Previous literature has indicated that AI chatbots in nursing education provide nursing students with various digital learning opportunities (15).”
From Digital affordances of AI chatbots in nursing education: a systematic review of learning gains and gaps in the evidence (2026) · cites this paper as [15]
Section 3.1 says chatbots could support learning in pharmacology and medical law, and the Conclusion describes potential personalized, interactive support for healthcare students. The paper does not establish that chatbots currently provide these opportunities to nursing students specifically; it studies potential uses in healthcare education. (LLM, conf=0.88)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 8 · Cited by 29
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Swartout WR, Virtual humans. In: Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence. Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; London; AAAI Press; MIT Press. (1999), 2006. p. 1543.
- Authors
- Natalia, S., Sokratis, N., Klas, K., Konstantinidis Stathis, T., Bamidis Panagiotis, D., Pattichis Constantinos, S., & Nadia, D.
- Venue
- Studies in Health Technology and Informatics
- Publisher
- IOS Press
- Published
- 2020
- Volume
- 272
- Pages
- 209-212
- ISSN
- 0926-9630 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3039541014
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 1.82
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Studies in health technology and informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed
- Funders
- Erasmus+ (2019-1-UK01-KA203-062091, KA203)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- chatbots, healthcare education, student perceptions, trust in chatbots, personalized learning, pharmacology education, medical law education, anthropomorphism
- MeSH terms
- Communication, Humans, Learning, Personal Satisfaction, Students, Students, Medical, Knowledge
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
