Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40727617›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025

Physicians' attitudes and acceptance towards artificial intelligence in medical care: a qualitative study in Germany.

Sarah Negash, Jana Gundlack, Charlotte Buch, Timo Apfelbacher, Jan Schildmann, Thomas Frese, Jan Christoph, Rafael Mikolajczyk

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 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Artificial intelligence in clinical genetics: Current practice and attitudes among the clinical genetics workforce.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Digital Dermatology.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors.

Sarah NegashInstitute for Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics and Informatics, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Jana GundlackInstitute of General Practice & Family Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center of Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Charlotte BuchInstitute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Timo ApfelbacherFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Medical Informatics, Erlangen, Germany.
Jan SchildmannInstitute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Thomas FreseInstitute of General Practice & Family Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center of Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Jan ChristophFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Medical Informatics, Erlangen, Germany.
Rafael MikolajczykInstitute for Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics and Informatics, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine is rapidly expanding, with the potential to transform physicians' working practices across various areas of medical care. As part of the PEAK project (Perspectives on the Use and Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Care) this study aimed to investigate physicians' attitudes towards and acceptance of AI in medical care. Methods: Between June 2022 and January 2023 eight semi-structured focus groups (FGs) were conducted with general practitioners (GPs) recruited from practices in the region of Halle/Leipzig, Germany, via email and postal mail, as well as with university hospital physicians from Halle and Erlangen, recruited via email. To conduct the FGs, a topic guide and a video stimulus were developed, including a definition of AI and three potential applications in medical care. Transcribed FGs and field notes were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: 39 physicians participated in eight FGs, including 15 GPs [80% male, mean age 44 years, standard deviation (SD) 10.4] and 24 hospital physicians (67% male, mean age 42 years, SD 8.6) from specialties including anesthesiology, neurosurgery, and occupational medicine. Physicians' statements were categorized into four themes: acceptance, physician-patient relationship, AI development and implementation, and application areas. Each theme was illustrated with selected participant quotations to highlight key aspects. Key factors promoting AI acceptance included human oversight, reliance on scientific evidence and non-profit funding. Concerns about AI's impact on the physician-patient relationship focused on reduced patient interaction time, with participants emphasizing the importance of maintaining a human connection. Key prerequisites for AI implementation included legal standards, like clarifying responsibilities and robust data protection measures. Most physicians were skeptical about the use of AI in tasks requiring empathy and human attention, like psychotherapy and caregiving. Potential areas of application included early diagnosis, screening, and repetitive, data-intensive processes. Conclusion: Most participants expressed openness to the use of AI in medicine, provided that human oversight is ensured, data protection measures are implemented, and regulatory barriers are addressed. Physicians emphasized interpersonal relationships as irreplaceable by AI. Understanding physicians' perspectives is essential for developing effective and practical AI applications for medical care settings.

Indexed as

acceptanceartificial intelligenceattitudeshealthcaremedical carephysicians

Identifiers

PMID40727617
PMCPMC12301400

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.