ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Perspectives of Health Care Professionals on the Use of AI to Support Clinical Decision-Making in the Management of Multiple Long-Term Conditions: Interview Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Drivers of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Adoption in Supporting Chronic Disease Management in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Review
- Patient Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence-Supported Shared Decision-Making in UK Primary Care for Multiple Long-Term Conditions: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Perceptions of Intensive Care Nurses Toward Artificial Intelligence Technologies: A Qualitative Study.Nursing & health sciences · 2026Article
- Heterogeneity in nurses' attitudes toward artificial intelligence: a latent profile analysis.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Exploring Nurses' Perspectives on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots for Mental Health Support: A Cross-Sectional Study in Greece.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary artificial intelligence systems versus single-model approaches for the diagnosis and management of ileus and volvulus.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Human-centered AI in healthcare teams: integrating clinical oversight, EHR auditability, and reimbursement pathways for responsible adoption.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManaging multiple long-term conditions (MLTC) is complex. Clinical management guidelines are typically focused on individual conditions and lack a robust evidence base for patients with MLTC. MLTC management is largely delivered in primary care, where health care professionals (HCPs) have identified the need for more holistic yet efficient models of care that can address patients' medical, pharmacological, social, and mental health needs. Artificial intelligence (AI) has proven effective in tackling complex, data-driven challenges in various fields, presenting significant opportunities for MLTC care. However, its role in managing patients with multifaceted psychosocial needs remains underexplored. The implementation of AI tools in this context introduces opportunities for innovation and challenges related to clinical appropriateness, trust, and ethical considerations. Understanding HCPs' experiences of MLTC management and the factors influencing their attitudes toward using AI in complex clinical decision-making is crucial for successful implementation.
objectiveWe aimed to explore the perspectives of primary care HCPs on managing MLTC and their attitudes toward using AI tools to support clinical decision-making in MLTC care.
methodsIn total, 20 HCPs, including general practitioners, geriatricians, nurses, and pharmacists, were interviewed. A patient case study was used to explore how an AI tool might alter the way in which participants approach clinical decision-making with a patient with MLTC. We derived concepts inductively from the interview transcripts and structured them according to the 5 categories of the model by Buck exploring determinants of attitudes toward AI. These included the concerns and expectations that contributed to the minimum requirements for HCPs to consider using an AI decision-making tool, as well as the individual characteristics and environmental influences determining their attitudes.
resultsHCPs' perspectives on managing MLTC were grouped into three main themes: (1) balancing multiple competing factors, including accounting for patients' social circumstances; (2) managing polypharmacy; and (3) working beyond single-condition guidelines. HCPs typically expected that AI tools would improve the safety and quality of clinical decision-making. However, they expressed concerns about the impact on the therapeutic clinician-patient relationship that is fundamental to the care of patients with MLTC. The key prerequisites for clinicians adopting AI tools in this context included improving public and patient trust in AI, saving time and integrating with existing systems, and ensuring that the rationale behind a recommendation is apparent to enable a final decision made by an experienced human clinician.
conclusionsThis is the first study to examine the attitudes of HCPs toward using AI decision-making tools in the context of managing MLTC. HCPs were optimistic about AI's potential to improve decision-making safety and quality but emphasized that the human touch remains essential for patients with complex needs. We identified critical requirements for AI adoption, including addressing patients' perceptions, time efficiency, and the preservation of clinician and patient autonomy. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077156.
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.