Actionable companion · Assessment and evidence of learning

From evidence to district action: Integrating generative AI into physiotherapy education: students’ use, perceptions, and generative AI literacy following curricular adaptations: a repeated cross-sectional programme evaluation

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. The district actions are proposed applications, not findings or recommendations attributed to the original authors. No additional peer review is asserted.

Evidence and context

Confirm the study population, setting and task before applying its findings to your district.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Background Structured generative artificial intelligence (GAI) training has been proposed as an effective approach to strengthen healthcare students’ confidence in navigating AI-related challenges and ethical considerations. However, few studies have evaluated the impact of implemented GAI-related curricular adaptations and learning activities, particularly within physiotherapy education. This study aimed to evaluate: 1) physiotherapy students’ use and perceptions of GAI in their studies during implementation of GAI-related curricular adaptations; and 2) GAI literacy in semester 1 before participation and in semester 3 after completion of structured GAI learning activities. Methods A two-part repeated cross-sectional programme evaluation with non-equivalent, unlinked samples was conducted among physiotherapy students at Linköping University, Sweden. Students’ use and perceptions of GAI were assessed after implementation of GAI-related curricular adaptations in 2024 and again in a separate survey wave in 2025. GAI literacy was evaluated using the 10-item Generative Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale (GAILS-10) before and after the GAI learning activities delivered during semesters 1–3. Results Reported GAI use differed significantly between 2024 and 2025 surveys, χ2(3) = 62.40, p < 0.001, with daily use reported by 57% of respondents in the 2025 survey compared with 13% in the 2024 survey. Respondents in the 2025 survey reported more diverse use of GAI, including brainstorming, question generation, and text refinement (p < 0.001). Perceptions of GAI as contributing to learning were also more positive in the 2025 survey, χ2(4) = 24.94, p < 0.001, whereas perceptions of information about permissible and impermissible use were similar in both surveys. Semester 3 students assessed after completing the GAI learning activities reported higher GAILS-10 scores across all dimensions than semester 1 students assessed before participation, with a large between-group effect size for the total score (d = 1.0). Conclusion Physiotherapy students reported more frequent and diverse GAI use and more positive learning perceptions in the 2025 survey than in the 2024 survey. Semester 3 students, assessed after completing the GAI learning activities, reported higher GAI literacy than semester 1 students assessed before participation in these activities. These findings suggest a need for curricular adaptations and educational support to promote appropriate GAI use, reduce misuse, and strengthen student GAI literacy. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10256-0.

A 90-day district pilot

1. Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
2. Days 16–30 · Design. Redesign one low-stakes assessment: require a first attempt, an AI-assisted revision, a source-check log and a short oral explanation. Use the same rubric for the comparison task. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
3. Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
4. Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning, factual accuracy and unaided transfer on a fresh task. Record suspected misconduct separately from demonstrated evidence. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Karin Schröder; Yvonne Lindbäck; Torkel Engström; Sofi Sonesson. Integrating generative AI into physiotherapy education: students’ use, perceptions, and generative AI literacy following curricular adaptations: a repeated cross-sectional programme evaluation. BMC Medical Education (2026-08-28). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10256-0

Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.