aceModerate evidence
Published recordEducationGood Space
More
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Powered Chatbots on Self-Directed Learning in Health Sciences Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2748raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- 3092e388a433…check it
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of AI-powered chatbots on self-directed learning (SDL; primary outcome), satisfaction, confidence, and critical thinking in health professions students. Methods We systematically searched five databases Library up to July 2026. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (RoB 2 for RCTs; ROBINS-I for quasi-experimental studies). Random-effects meta-analyses using REML estimation were performed, with Hartung-Knapp-Sidi…
The gain
A meta-analysis of five studies with 365 health professions students found AI chatbots may improve self-directed learning (Hedges's g=0.85, 95% CI 0.50-1.21), though certainty was low.
What this doesn’t fix
Certainty of evidence was low because studies used different self-directed learning measures and the sample was smaller than optimal; the confidence finding was fragile and critical thinking could not be pooled.
Sources
1 on file- Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Developmentdoi:10.1177/23821205261491865
What the review found when it combined the studies
These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.
Satisfaction of health professions students using AI chatbots
Hedges' g 1.05 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.75)
5 studies · 320 people · search to July 2026
The review’s own words
Chatbots may improve satisfaction (g=1.05; 95% CI: 0.36-1.75; p=0.014; 5 studies; I 2 =75.9%; prediction interval: -0.67 to 2.77; low certainty).
Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results
Cite this record
v1Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2748, v1: “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Powered Chatbots on Self-Directed Learning in Health Sciences Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2748 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 3092e388a433010f…
Change history
1 versionEvery change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.
Certified into the record
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page
Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2748 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.