Observational studyFrontiers in public health2025
Parents' understanding and attitudes toward the application of AI in pediatric healthcare: a cross-sectional survey study.
Observational study in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Domain-Dependent Performance of Human Experts and AI Systems in Pediatric Menu Evaluation.Nutrients · 2026Observational
- Parents' knowledge, attitudes, and concerns regarding the use of artificial intelligence in pediatric medicine: a cross-sectional study.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Quality of artificial intelligence-generated responses on pediatric celiac disease: Comparative assessment of Open AI ChatGPT and Google Gemini.JPGN reports · 2026Article
- AI in pediatric surgery: a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Comprehensive Pediatric Health Risk Stratification Using an AI-Driven Framework in Children Aged 2 to 8 Years: Design and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Freely accessible large language models for parent education in pediatric immune thrombocytopenia: an expert-rated cross-sectional study of safety, readability, and guideline concordance.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Generative AI use and social disparities in pediatric rehabilitation: a cross-sectional study of ChatGPT use among parents of children with speech and language disorders in Türkiye.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate parents' understanding and attitudes toward the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in pediatric healthcare. Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study was conducted using an Results: A total of 185 participants completed the questionnaire. Participants who were unaware of AI applications in pediatric healthcare were more likely to be older, have lower educational levels, and reside in rural areas. The majority of respondents (71.2%) believed that the information provided by AI was partially accurate, while 6.9% considered it partially inaccurate. Regarding perceived benefits, 74% identified convenience as the main advantage of AI in pediatric care, followed by 41.1% who cited high diagnostic efficiency. Key concerns included perceived inaccuracy and the potential for misdiagnosis (52%), as well as uncertainty regarding accountability in the event of an error (44.5%). Most participants (91.1%) believed that AI cannot replace doctors in the future. Conclusion: Although most parents were aware of the use of AI in pediatric healthcare and recognized its convenience and efficiency, they expressed concerns about accuracy, accountability, and data privacy. A notable lack of awareness was observed among older individuals, those with lower levels of education, and residents of rural areas.
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.