ArticleScientific reports2025
Psychometric evaluation of an instrument measuring artificial intelligence utilization in decision-making domains of healthcare organizations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The decision-making process in healthcare services encounters numerous challenges. Artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly contributed to enhancing healthcare decision-making. There is a lack of validated instruments available in the literature to measure AI utilization across various healthcare domains. This study aimed to validate an instrument designed to assess the level of AI utilization across various healthcare domains within healthcare organizations. This study was conducted in Iran during the 2024-2025 period, utilizing a methodological design for the development of the study instrument. Initially, the authors formulated and constructed items for a preliminary questionnaire based on a previously published study within the relevant context. To ensure the instrument's validity and reliability, a comprehensive evaluation was performed using multiple methods, including assessments of face validity, content validity, construct validity, and reliability analysis. The final version of the study instrument consisted of 12 items. The instrument demonstrated excellent validity and reliability. The average factor loading across the instrument's items was 0.8, and the principal component accounted for 65.31% of the total variance. Additionally, both Cronbach's alpha and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values were 0.95, indicating high internal consistency and reliability. Furthermore, the findings indicated that the level of AI utilization in Iran was predominantly low across most assessed items. The study presented a validated instrument for assessing AI implementation across healthcare decision-making domains. Further research is needed to develop specialized instruments for each decision-making domain to enhance data comprehensiveness.
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.