Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40161560›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025

Physicians and AI in healthcare: insights from a mixed-methods study in Poland on adoption and challenges.

Ewelina Kowalewska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ewelina KowalewskaDepartment of Management, Kozminski University, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Understanding healthcare professionals' attitudes towards artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine is crucial for improving patient care and clinical practice. This study combines a systematic review and a survey targeting Polish physicians to explore these attitudes. While many healthcare professionals express enthusiasm and readiness for AI integration, others remain skeptical due to concerns about reliability, ethical implications, and legal accountability. The systematic review highlighted AI's potential benefits, such as improved diagnostic accuracy and workflow efficiency, alongside challenges like data privacy and the need for validation in atypical scenarios. Materials and methods: This study combines insights from a systematic review and a targeted survey to assess healthcare professionals' attitudes toward AI. The survey focused on Polish physicians, a group uniquely positioned to provide insights due to their healthcare system's specific challenges. Results: The survey revealed optimism among Polish physicians (n86), with 68% ready to adopt AI tools, but underscored the necessity of tailored education and clear implementation guidelines. Discussion: This study provides valuable insights into the dual narrative of optimism and skepticism surrounding AI in healthcare, emphasizing the importance of addressing barriers to maximize its benefits globally.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)healthcare professionalsphysician attitudesPolish healthcare systemsystemic review

Identifiers

PMID40161560
PMCPMC11949901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.