ArticlePloS one2020
Perceptions of virtual primary care physicians: A focus group study of medical and data science graduate students.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stakeholder Perspectives of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Implementation: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Exploring alternative approaches to precision medicine through genomics and artificial intelligence - a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Medical students' and faculty members' perceptions and experiences of AI integration in health care practice and in medical curricula: A meta-ethnographic review.Medical education · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Medical Care - Patients' Perceptions on Caregiving Relationships and Ethics: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Beliefs, experiences and concerns of using artificial intelligence in healthcare: A qualitative synthesis.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial and virtual technologies in healthcare have advanced rapidly, and healthcare systems have been adapting care accordingly. An intriguing new development is the virtual physician, which can diagnose and treat patients independently. METHODS AND
findingsThis qualitative study of advanced degree students aimed to assess their perceptions of using a virtual primary care physician as a patient. Four focus groups were held: first year medical students, fourth year medical students, first year engineering/data science graduate students, and fourth year engineering/data science graduate students. The focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and content analyses of the transcripts was performed using a data-driven inductive approach. Themes identified concerned advantages, disadvantages, and the future of virtual primary care physicians. Within those main categories, 13 themes emerged and 31 sub-themes. DISCUSSION: While participants appreciated that a virtual primary care physician would be convenient, efficient, and cost-effective, they also expressed concern about data privacy and the potential for misdiagnosis. To garner trust from its potential users, future virtual primary physicians should be programmed with a sufficient amount of trustworthy data and have a high level of transparency and accountability for patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.