J. Pharm. Pharmacogn. Res., vol. 14, no. 5, Article ID 2913, Sep-Oct 2026.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.56499/jppres_14.5.2913

Original Article

Generative AI use, access channels, and perceptions among pharmacy students: A cross-sectional survey

[Uso de inteligencia artificial generativa, canales de acceso y percepciones en estudiantes de farmacia: una encuesta transversal]

Panumart Phumart^*, Phenphitcha Somton, Laksanaphorn Phothong, Atchareeya Phudindan, Areewan Cheawchanwattana

Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand.

*E-mail: panuphu@kku.ac.th

Abstract

Context: Pharmacy students use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) through provider-operated, university-supported, and embedded channels, but curricular differences in access-channel choice remain poorly described.

Aims: To describe tools, access channels, perceived benefits and concerns, and unadjusted curricular-year differences among pharmacy students with prior GenAI experience.

Methods: A cross-sectional web survey recruited 180 Doctor of Pharmacy students by nonprobability quota sampling (30 per year). Primary access channels and 21 attitude items were assessed. Pearson-based exploratory factor analysis was complemented by a polychoric-matrix sensitivity analysis. Group differences and confidence intervals were estimated.

Results: ChatGPT was ranked as the most-used tool by 140/180 students (77.8%); 173/180 (96.1%) ranked at least two distinct tools among their three most-used. Provider-operated channels ranked first for 150/179 (83.8%), compared with 24/179 (13.4%) for the university portal. The portal was first-ranked by 19/90 later-year and 5/89 early-year students (odds ratio 4.50, 95% CI 1.60–12.65; Fisher exact p = 0.004). Pearson and polychoric factor analyses yielded two weakly correlated dimensions (r = 0.05 and 0.17, respectively). Perceived Benefits were higher in early-year students (4.42 vs. 4.18; mean difference 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.40), whereas Concerns did not differ significantly (p = 0.192).

Conclusions: In this selected sample of prior GenAI users at one pharmacy faculty, access-channel choice, daily use, and perceived benefits differed between curricular-year groups. The sampling method and cross-sectional design preclude population-level or developmental inferences.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; education, pharmacy; students, pharmacy; surveys and questionnaires.

Resumen

Contexto: Los estudiantes de farmacia utilizan inteligencia artificial generativa a través de plataformas de proveedores, portales universitarios y asistentes integrados. Las diferencias por curso entre canales están poco descritas.

Objetivos: Describir herramientas, canales, beneficios percibidos, preocupaciones y diferencias no ajustadas por curso entre estudiantes que habían utilizado IA generativa.

Métodos: Una encuesta transversal en línea incluyó a 180 estudiantes mediante un muestreo no probabilístico por cuotas (30 por curso). Se evaluaron los canales y 21 ítems de actitud. El análisis factorial basado en correlaciones de Pearson se complementó con un análisis de sensibilidad policórico. Se estimaron diferencias e intervalos de confianza.

Resultados: ChatGPT ocupó el primer lugar entre 140/180 estudiantes (77,8%); 173/180 (96,1%) clasificaron al menos dos herramientas distintas entre las tres más utilizadas. Los canales de proveedores ocuparon el primer lugar con 150/179 (83,8%) y el portal universitario, con 24/179 (13,4%). Este último fue primero para 19/90 estudiantes de cursos superiores (4.º–6.º) frente a 5/89 de cursos iniciales (1.º–3.º; odds ratio: 4,50; IC del 95 %: 1,60–12,65; prueba exacta de Fisher, p = 0,004). Se obtuvieron dos factores débilmente correlacionados (r = 0,05 y 0,17, respectivamente). Los beneficios percibidos fueron mayores en los cursos iniciales (4,42 frente a 4,18; diferencia: 0,24; IC del 95%: 0,08–0,40); las preocupaciones no difirieron significativamente (p = 0,192).

Conclusiones: En esta muestra de una sola facultad, los grupos difirieron en el canal principal, el uso diario y los beneficios percibidos. El muestreo y el diseño transversal impiden inferencias poblacionales y sobre cambios individuales.

Palabras Clave: educación en farmacia; encuestas y cuestionarios; estudiantes de farmacia; inteligencia artificial.

https://jppres.com/jppres/pdf/vol14/jppres_14.5.2913.pdf

Citation Format: Phumart P, Somton P, Phothong L, Phudindan A, Cheawchanwattana A (2026) Generative AI use, access channels, and perceptions among pharmacy students: A cross-sectional survey. J Pharm Pharmacogn Res 14(5): 2913. https://doi.org/10.56499/jppres_14.5.2913

References

Abdel Aziz MH, Rowe C, Southwood R, Nogid A, Berman S, Gustafson K (2024) A scoping review of artificial intelligence within pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ 88(1): 100615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2023.100615

Anderson HD, Kwon S, Linnebur LA, Valdez CA, Linnebur SA (2024) Pharmacy student use of ChatGPT: a survey of students at a U.S. school of pharmacy. Curr Pharm Teach Learn 16(11): 102156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2024.102156

Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL (2018) Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health 6: 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149

Cain J, Malcom DR, Aungst TD (2023) The role of artificial intelligence in the future of pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ 87(10): 100135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2023.100135

Chan CKY, Hu W (2023) Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 20: 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8

Elnaem MH, Okuyan B, Mubarak N, Thabit AK, AbouKhatwa MM, Ramatillah DL, Isah A, Al-Jumaili AA, Nazar NIM (2025) Students’ acceptance and use of generative AI in pharmacy education: international cross-sectional survey based on the extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Int J Clin Pharm 47(4): 1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-025-01936-w

Eysenbach G (2004) Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 6(3): e34. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34

Flora DB, Curran PJ (2004) An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods 9(4): 466–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466

Hamid H, Zulkifli K, Naimat F, Che Yaacob NL, Ng KW (2023) Exploratory study on student perception on the use of chat AI in process-driven problem-based learning. Curr Pharm Teach Learn 15(12): 1017–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2023.10.001

Holgado-Tello FP, Chacón-Moscoso S, Barbero-García I, Vila-Abad E (2010) Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Qual Quant 44(1): 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y

Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15(9): 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

Huang X, Estau D, Liu X, Yu Y, Qin J, Li Z (2024) Evaluating the performance of ChatGPT in clinical pharmacy: a comparative study of ChatGPT and clinical pharmacists. Br J Clin Pharmacol 90(1): 232–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15896

Mortlock R, Lucas C (2024) Generative artificial intelligence (Gen-AI) in pharmacy education: utilization and implications for academic integrity: a scoping review. Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm 15: 100481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100481

Mudenda S, Mufwambi W, Mwale RS, Kathewera B, Lubanga AF (2025) Attitudes and usage of ChatGPT among pharmacy students in a sub-Saharan African country, Zambia: findings and implications on the education system. BMC Med Educ 25: 1237. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07833-0

Nakagawa N, Odanaka K, Ohara H, Kisara S (2022) Communication training for pharmacy students with standard patients using artificial intelligence. Curr Pharm Teach Learn 14(7): 854–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2022.06.021

O’Connor BP (2000) SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 32(3): 396–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200807

Pham TD, Karunaratne N, Exintaris B, Liu D, Lay T, Yuriev E, Lim A (2025) The impact of generative AI on health professional education: A systematic review in the context of student learning. Med Educ 59(12): 1280–1289. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15746

Sallam M, Salim NA, Barakat M, Al-Tammemi AB (2023) ChatGPT applications in medical, dental, pharmacy, and public health education: a descriptive study highlighting the advantages and limitations. Narra J 3(1): e103. https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v3i1.103

Sharma A, Minh Duc NT, Luu Lam Thang T, Nam NH, Ng SJ, Abbas KS, Huy NT, Marušić A, Paul CL, Kwok J, Karbwang J, de Waure C, Drummond FJ, Kizawa Y, Taal E, Vermeulen J, Lee GHM, Gyedu A, To KG, Verra ML, Jacqz-Aigrain ÉM, Leclercq WKG, Salminen ST, Sherbourne CD, Mintzes B, Lozano S, Tran US, Matsui M, Karamouzian M (2021) A consensus-based checklist for reporting of survey studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med 36(10): 3179–3187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-06737-1

Weidmann AE (2024) Artificial intelligence in academic writing and clinical pharmacy education: Consequences and opportunities. Int J Clin Pharm 46(3): 751–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-024-01705-1

Zawiah M, Al-Ashwal FY, Gharaibeh L, Abu Farha R, Alzoubi KH, Abu Hammour K, Qasim QA, Abrah F (2023) ChatGPT and clinical training: perception, concerns, and practice of pharm-D students. J Multidiscip Healthc 16: 4099–4110. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S439223

© 2026 Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmacognosy Research