ArticleDigital health
General practitioners' adoption of generative artificial intelligence in clinical practice in the UK: An updated online survey.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Patient and Family Perspectives on Generative AI Tools in Rare Diseases: Exploratory Mixed Methods Online Survey.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and clinical informatics in UK ophthalmology training: a national cross-sectional survey.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Acceptable accuracy for medical AI: a survey of physicians and the general population in Sweden.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- GenAI and clinical decision making in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Redesigning leadership for clinical AI deployment.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Adoption, perceived value, and barriers to generative artificial intelligence in emergency medicine: A cross-sectional survey of Latin American clinicians.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceArticle
- Can Large Language Models Answer Questions about Spinal Cord Injury? Risks, Challenges, and Opportunities-A Narrative Review.Neurotrauma reportsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Following the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022, interest in large language model-powered chatbots has soared with increasing focus on the clinical potential of these tools. Building on a previous survey conducted in 2024, we sought to gauge general practitioners' (GPs) adoption of this new generation of chatbots to assist with any aspect of clinical practice in the UK. Methods: An online survey was disseminated in January 2025 to a stratified convenience sample of GPs registered with the clinician marketing platform Doctors.net.uk. The research was conducted as part of a scheduled monthly 'omnibus survey,' designed to achieve a fixed sample size of 1000 participants. Results: Of the 1005 respondents, 50% respondents were men, 54% were 46 years or older. 25% reported using generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools in clinical practice; of these, 35% reported using these tools to generate documentation after patient appointments, 27% to suggest a differential diagnosis, 24% for treatment options, and 24% for referrals. Of the 249 GPs who used generative AI for clinical tasks, 71% said that, in general, these tools reduced work burdens. In the last 12 months, 85% reported that their employer had not encouraged them to use GenAI tools, but only 3% said their employer had prohibited them from using GenAI tools in their work; 95% reported they had no professional training in using GenAI tools in their work. Conclusions: This survey suggests that doctors' use of GenAI in clinical practice may be growing in the UK. Findings suggest that UK GPs may benefit from these tools, especially for administrative tasks and clinical reasoning support, and after adopting them, most users reported a decrease in work burdens. Continued absence of reported training remains a concern.
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.