ArticleBMJ open2025
Knowledge, attitude and practice of artificial intelligence among dietitians in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Association Between Perceived Ability to Use Artificial Intelligence, Self-Reported Nursing Productivity, and Self-Reported Practice Readiness Among Nurses in Saudi Arabia: A Multicentre Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Navigating the AI era in dietetics: a qualitative analysis of professional identity, ethical concerns, and future projections in Türkiye.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Dietitians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Food-Drug and Drug-Nutrient Interactions in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Healthcare providers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward integrating evidence-based practice and artificial intelligence in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study assesses the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of licensed dietitians in Saudi Arabia regarding artificial intelligence (AI) in dietetics and identifies sociodemographic factors associated with higher AI knowledge and use, along with perceived benefits and concerns.
designDescriptive, cross-sectional study with an analytical component.
settingConducted online across Saudi Arabia, targeting licensed dietitians in public and private healthcare sectors.
participants161 licensed dietitians completed the study. Inclusion criteria consisted of current registration and active practice in either clinical or community settings. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were levels of AI-related KAPs assessed via a structured questionnaire. The secondary outcomes examined associations between KAP and demographic factors.
resultsAmong participants, 62.7% reported using AI in practice; 72.3% found it easy to use and 63.4% believed it improved their work. Higher knowledge was significantly linked to being aged 24-40, female, married, Saudi, a university graduate and employed (p<0.05). Positive attitudes were more prevalent among dietitians aged 31-40 and university graduates. Key perceived applications included nutrition programme development (88.2%), meal image analysis (84.4%) and personalised diet planning (83.9%). Significant concerns were loss of human touch (87.6%) and reduced personal interaction (83.9%).
conclusionsDietitians in Saudi Arabia generally recognise AI's value in dietetic practice, particularly in programme development and personalisation. However, concerns about diminished human interaction remain. Structured training and further longitudinal research are recommended to support balanced AI integration.
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.