ArticleCureus2024
Assessing Public Knowledge and Acceptance of Using Artificial Intelligence Doctors as a Partial Alternative to Human Doctors in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Predictors of Trust and Engagement in Personalized Healthcare: A Study of AI-Driven Diagnosis and Treatment in Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Public awareness, trust, perceived usefulness, and willingness to use ChatGPT for healthcare communication among adults in the Asir Region, Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Public Knowledge and Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Physicians in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Knowledge and attitudes towards artificial intelligence use in healthcare among the general public in Jordan.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective To assess the public acceptance of using artificial intelligence (AI) doctors to diagnose and treat patients as a partial alternative to human physicians in Saudi Arabia. Methodology An observational cross-sectional study was conducted from January to March 2024. A link to an online questionnaire was distributed through social media applications to citizens and residents aged 18 years and older across various regions in Saudi Arabia. The sample size was calculated using the Raosoft online survey size calculator, which estimated that the minimum sample size should be 385. Results Of the 386 participants surveyed, 85.8% reported being aware of AI, and 47.9% reported having some knowledge about different AI fields in daily life. However, almost one-third (32.9%) reported a lack of knowledge about the use of AI in healthcare. In terms of acceptance, 52.3% of respondents indicated they felt comfortable with the use of AI tools as partial alternatives to human doctors, and 30.8% believed AI is useful in the field of health. The most common concern (63.7%) about the use of AI tools accessible to patients was the difficulty of describing symptoms using these tools. Conclusion The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the public's knowledge and acceptance of AI in medicine within the Saudi Arabian context. Overall, this study underscores the importance of proactively addressing the public's concerns and knowledge gaps regarding AI in healthcare. By fostering greater understanding and acceptance, healthcare stakeholders can better harness the potential of AI to improve patient outcomes and enhance the efficiency of medical services in Saudi Arabia.
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.