Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40613609›Full record

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.

Jennifer Cooper, Shamil Haroon, Francesca Crowe, Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar, Thomas Jackson, Leah Fitzsimmons, Eleanor Hathaway, Sarah Flanagan, Tom Marshall, Louise J Jackson and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Atencion primaria · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

14 authors.

Jennifer CooperDepartment of Applied Health Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6566-4527
Shamil HaroonDepartment of Applied Health Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0096-1413
Francesca CroweDepartment of Applied Health Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4026-1726
Krishnarajah NirantharakumarSchool of Life Course and Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6816-1279
Thomas JacksonDepartment of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6320-9600
Leah FitzsimmonsDepartment of Metabolism and Systems Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7401-0186
Eleanor HathawayDepartment of Applied Health Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2637-1307
Sarah FlanaganDepartment of Applied Health Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5406-4060
Tom MarshallDepartment of Applied Health Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9277-5214
Louise J JacksonDepartment of Applied Health Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8492-0020
Niluka GunathilakaDepartment of Applied Health Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6887-8790
Alexander D'EliaDepartment of Applied Health Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8735-9689
Simon George MorrisDepartment of Applied Health Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3058-568X
Sheila GreenfieldDepartment of Applied Health Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8796-4114

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical Decision-MakingHealth PersonnelMultiple Chronic ConditionsFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMalePrimary Health CareAIartificial intelligencemultiple long-term conditionsprimary carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID40613609
PMCPMC12274781

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.