ArticleBMJ open2024
Healthcare ethics and artificial intelligence: a UK doctor survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthcare Providers' Perspectives on the Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Care of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An International Survey.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Patient attitudes toward artificial intelligence in Jordanian Healthcare: A cross-sectional survey study.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- "Black box" artificial intelligence for mortality prediction: a mixed-methods study of palliative care team, patient, and caregiver perspectives.Annals of palliative medicine · 2026Article
- Mitigated deployment strategy for ethical AI in clinical settings.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Generative AI/LLMs for Plain Language Medical Information for Patients, Caregivers and General Public: Opportunities, Risks and Ethics.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Review
- General practitioners' opinions of generative artificial intelligence in the UK: An online survey.Digital healthArticle
- Awareness, use, and perceived barriers to artificial intelligence in pediatric urology: a multicenter survey.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
- Allied health professional attitudes toward artificial intelligence in healthcare: A UK cross-sectional survey.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo survey UK doctors on their uses of artificial intelligence (AI) and of their views on the ethics and regulation of AI in healthcare.
designAnonymous cross-sectional e-survey.
settingAn online survey of UK General Medical Council (GMC) registered doctors.
participants272 individuals.
main outcome measuresLikert-scale responses to questions covering personal use of AI, concerns about AI, requirements for introduction of AI and views on necessary AI regulation in healthcare.
resultsMost doctors rated themselves as slightly or moderately knowledgeable about AI, with men rating their knowledge levels higher than women. Doctors in training are more likely to have used AI than doctors after training. 37% of doctors who use AI reported using AI to help write the required reflective pieces for their portfolio. Doctors reported concerns about AI regarding patient safety and patients' right to confidentiality. They also expressed a strong desire for further regulation of AI in healthcare and, specifically, for their professional bodies to draft guidelines for the use of AI by doctors.
conclusionsThis study provides useful insights into UK doctors' uses of AI in healthcare and their opinions on its introduction and regulation. It provides a case for guidance on the use of AI in the reflective practices of doctors and for further evaluation of doctors' concerns about AI in healthcare. We call on doctors' professional bodies (GMC, BMA and royal colleges) to draft professional guidance for doctors using AI.
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.