ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
How do GPs Want Large Language Models to be Applied in Primary Care, and What Are Their Concerns? A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Role of Large Language Models in Primary Care: Qualitative Study of Physicians in the United States and the Netherlands.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Mapping applications and evaluations of LLM-enabled AI chatbots for health purposes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in general practice in Germany: an online survey of current use, perceived benefits, barriers, and future needs.BJGP open · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAlthough the potential utility of large language models (LLMs) in medicine and healthcare is substantial, no assessment has been made to date of how GPs want LLMs to be applied in primary care, or of which issues GPs are most concerned about regarding the implementation of LLMs into their clinical practice. This study's objective was to generate preliminary evidence that answers these questions, which are relevant because GPs themselves will ultimately harness the power of LLMs in primary care.
methodsNon-probability sampling was utilised: GPs practicing in the UK and who were members of one of two Facebook groups (one containing a community of UK primary care staff, the other containing a community of GMC-registered doctors in the UK) were invited to complete an online survey, which ran from 06 to 13 November 2024.
resultsThe survey received 113 responses, 107 of which were from GPs practicing in the UK. When LLM accuracy and safety were assumed to be guaranteed, broad enthusiasm for LLMs carrying out various nonclinical and clinical tasks in primary care was reported. The single nonclinical task and clinical task that respondents were most supportive of were the LLM listening to the consultation and writing notes in real-time for the GP to review, edit, and save (44.0%), and the LLM identifying outstanding clinical tasks and actioning them (51.0%), respectively. Respondents were concerned with a range of issues regarding LLMs being embedded into clinical systems, with patient safety being the most commonly reported single issue of concern (36.2%). DISCUSSION: This study has generated preliminary evidence that is of potential utility to those developing LLMs for use in primary care. Further research is required to expand this evidence base to further inform the development of these technologies, and to ensure they are acceptable to the GPs who will use them.
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.