JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Generative artificial intelligence (GAI), represented by large language models like ChatGPT, have the potential to transform healthcare and medical education. In particular, GAI's impact on higher education has the potential to change students' learning experience as well as faculty's teaching. However, concerns about ethical consideration and reliability of assessment have been raised. Furthermore, in medical education, curriculum reform is required to adapt to the revolutionary changes brought about by the integration of GAI into medical practice and research.

Objective:

This study analyzes the impact of GAI on medical education curricula and explores strategies for adaptation.

Methods:

The study was conducted in the context of faculty development at a medical school in Japan. A workshop involving faculty and students was organized, and participants were divided into groups to address two research questions: 1) How does GAI affect undergraduate medical education curricula? 2) How should medical school curricula be reformed to address the impact of GAI? The Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) framework was employed, and cross-SWOT matrix analysis was used to devise strategies. Four researchers conducted content analysis on the data generated during the workshop discussions.

Results:

The data were collected from 8 groups comprising 55 participants. Five themes about the impact of GAI on medical education curricula emerged: Improvement of teaching and learning, Improved access to information, Inhibition of existing learning processes, Problems in GAI, and Changes in physicians' professionality. Positive impacts included enhanced teaching and learning efficiency and improved access to information, whereas negative impacts included concerns about reduced independent thinking and adaptability of existing assessment methods. Additionally, GAI was perceived to change the nature of physicians' expertise. Three themes emerged from the cross-SWOT analysis for curriculum reform: 1) Learning about GAI, 2) Learning with GAI, and 3) Learning aside from GAI. Participants recommended incorporating GAI literacy, ethical considerations, and compliance into the curriculum. Learning with GAI involved improving learning efficiency, supporting information gathering and dissemination, and facilitating patient involvement. Learning aside from GAI emphasized maintaining GAI-free learning processes, fostering higher cognitive domains of learning, and introducing more communication exercises.

Conclusions:

This study highlights the profound impact of GAI on medical education curricula and provides insights into curriculum reform strategies. Participants recognized the need for GAI literacy, ethical education, and adaptive learning. Additionally, GAI was recognized as a tool that can enhance efficiency and involve patients in education. The study also suggests that medical education should focus on competencies that GAI hardly replaces, such as clinical experience and communication. Notably, involving both faculty and students in curriculum reform discussions fosters a sense of ownership and ensures broader perspectives are encompassed.