Educators' Perspectives On The Use Of Generative Ai In Pharmacy Education: An Extended Unified Theory Of Acceptance And Use Of Technology

• By: ELNAEM, Mohamed (University of Ulster, United Kingdom)
• Co-author(s): Dr Mohamed Elnaem (School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Ulster, Coleraine, United Kingdom)
  Dr Betul Okuyan (Faculty of Pharmacy, Marmara University, Istanbul, Türkiye)
  Dr Naeem Mubarak (Lahore Medical & Dental College, University of Health Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan)
  Dr Merna AbouKhatwa (Faculty of Pharmacy, Alexandria University,, Alexandria, Egypt)
  Dr Ali Azeez Al-Jumaili (9College of Pharmacy, University of Baghdad, Iraq)
  Dr AbdulMuminu Isah (University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria)
  Dr Abrar K. Thabit (Faculty of Pharmacy, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
  
• Abstract:

  Introduction: AI has revolutionised how we perceive, cognise, learn, and make decisions within healthcare education and practice. More AI generative tools and applications are becoming available for pharmacy students and educators for various uses. While these tools could be significant assets for doing academic tasks efficiently, several concerns, experiences, and perspectives govern their current and future use in pharmacy education. Therefore, this study aims to examine the acceptance of generative AI-based technology, determined by the effects of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions.
  
  Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among pharmacy educators in different countries: the United Kingdom, Turkey, Nigeria, Malaysia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. A survey instrument was developed and informed by the theoretical framework provided by the extended version of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Data was collected online through study co-investigators in each country between February 1st and March 15th, 2024. Descriptive statistics were employed to present key data in frequencies and percentages.
  
  Results: preliminary findings showed that 216 responses were received, mainly from females (67%), with 41% in their first five years of academic experience. Over one-third of the responses were from clinical pharmacy and pharmacy practice disciplines. The vast majority (68%) have both teaching and research commitments. Regarding the frequency of using academic AI tools, Quillbot was ranked first as a very frequent tool (N=59), followed by ChatGPT (N=56). Concerning the acceptance and use of generative AI based on the UTAUT model, over two-thirds of participants positively perceive the usefulness of generative AI in their academic lives (performance expectancy). About 50% reflect positively on the ease of adopting AI for their academic tasks (effort expectancy), while 48% reported being influenced to use these tools through their social networks (social influence). Only 25% (N=54) highlighted a clear university policy on using generative AI among students and academics, while 64% expressed concerns regarding the misuse and overuse of generative AI tools for academic purposes. Although 42% agreed that generative AI tools are valuable for money, only 29% reported that they are affordable to pay for their required tools. In addition, 41.2% disagree that they become addicted to using AI generative tools; meanwhile, about 59% intend to continue using generative AI tools in their future academic careers. Finally, in response to an open-ended question on generative AI in pharmacy education, educators provided insights into the need for plagiarism-like regulations and guidance, a lack of awareness of the potentially useful applications, the risk of reducing cognitive and critical thinking abilities, and the need for training on the responsible use of generative AI in academia.
  
  Conclusion: The adoption of generative AI among pharmacy educators seems to be perceived positively in terms of expected performance, effort, and willingness to continue using it in the future. However, they are still concerned about the affordability of paid tools and their potential misuse, particularly with the lack of clear university policy to govern this adoption among students and educators.