ArticleJMIR medical education2023
Computerization of the Work of General Practitioners: Mixed Methods Survey of Final-Year Medical Students in Ireland.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the integration of digitalization and AI in general medicine curricula in German-speaking Europe: a comprehensive survey.Medical education online · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: an updated scoping review.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: Qualitative Study of UK General Practitioners' Views.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- AI Use or Non-use by First-Year Medical Students: A Qualitative Study of Perspectives, Usage, and Recommendations.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe potential for digital health technologies, including machine learning (ML)-enabled tools, to disrupt the medical profession is the subject of ongoing debate within biomedical informatics.
objectiveWe aimed to describe the opinions of final-year medical students in Ireland regarding the potential of future technology to replace or work alongside general practitioners (GPs) in performing key tasks.
methodsBetween March 2019 and April 2020, using a convenience sample, we conducted a mixed methods paper-based survey of final-year medical students. The survey was administered at 4 out of 7 medical schools in Ireland across each of the 4 provinces in the country. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests. We used thematic content analysis to investigate free-text responses.
resultsIn total, 43.1% (252/585) of the final-year students at 3 medical schools responded, and data collection at 1 medical school was terminated due to disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. With regard to forecasting the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI)/ML on primary care 25 years from now, around half (127/246, 51.6%) of all surveyed students believed the work of GPs will change minimally or not at all. Notably, students who did not intend to enter primary care predicted that AI/ML will have a great impact on the work of GPs.
conclusionsWe caution that without a firm curricular foundation on advances in AI/ML, students may rely on extreme perspectives involving self-preserving optimism biases that demote the impact of advances in technology on primary care on the one hand and technohype on the other. Ultimately, these biases may lead to negative consequences in health care. Improvements in medical education could help prepare tomorrow's doctors to optimize and lead the ethical and evidence-based implementation of AI/ML-enabled tools in medicine for enhancing the care of tomorrow's 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.