Generative AI · Education leadership

Actionable companion · Staff capability and AI literacy

From evidence to district action: Generative AI and knowledge management in health education: a cross-sectional study of students’ digital literacy and attitudes from a developing-country context

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.

Read original paperSearch paper agentCC BY 4.0

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 Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming higher education and digital learning. However, a scarcity of information remains regarding the students’ perspectives on AI’s role in education. We investigated AI-related knowledge, use, and attitudes among entry-level healthcare students in Kosovo. Methods Cross-sectional online survey (June–August 2025) of entry-level students from two institutions (≈ 700 invited; N = 302; response 43.1%). Analyses used χ² with Cramér’s V, and Kruskal–Wallis with ε²; α = 0.05. Results ChatGPT was reported as the primary AI instrument (84.2%). 74.8% of participants perceived AI integration positively, 77.2% supported curricular integration, and its ability to facilitate access to information was 91.4%. Interest in AI training was as high as 71.2%, whereas major concerns included error risks (29.5%) and reduced creativity (29.0%). Program differences were observed for faculty use of AI-assisted materials (p = 0.006; Cramér’s V = 0.20), AI-training opportunities (p = 0.037; V = 0.17), and institutional AI-tool provision (p = 0.032; V = 0.151); self-rated AI knowledge did not differ (p = 0.274; ε²=0.003). Conclusions Findings indicate general positivity towards AI, alongside concerns regarding unequal access and limited formal training. These findings underscore the importance of integrating generative AI within e-learning strategies, strengthening students’ digital literacy, and ensuring institutional support in developing country settings.

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. Run a staff workshop using three authentic lesson-planning tasks. Ask participants to identify hallucinations, revise outputs and document when they reject the tool. 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. Measure error-detection accuracy before and after training, preparation time and the quality of the final lesson plans. 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

Ermira Krasniqi; Adea Kasumi; Arjeta Kuçi; Elda Murić; Elsa Ahmeti; Laura Naka; Arben Boshnjaku. Generative AI and knowledge management in health education: a cross-sectional study of students’ digital literacy and attitudes from a developing-country context. BMC Medical Education (2026-05-13). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09373-7

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.