ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Triadic relations in healthcare: surveying physicians' perspectives on generative AI integration and its role on empathy, the placebo effect and patient care.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Utility of Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology Training and Practice: A National, Cross-Sectional Study.The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2026Article
- "ChatGPT knows my Parkinson's": Perspectives of people with Parkinson's disease on use of generative AI.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- Investigating Placebos and Controls Used in Large Language Model-Based Chatbot Intervention Trials: Protocol for a Methodological Review.JMIR research protocols · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The integration of generative artificial intelligence (genAI) tools into clinical practice and health care systems is reshaping modern healthcare, introducing technology as an active third participant in the evolving physician-patient-technology relationship. As these tools begin to play more prominent roles, understanding physicians' perspectives is essential for guiding their ethical and effective use. Objective: This survey examined physicians' use of genAI and their views on its potential impact on empathy, the physician-patient relationship, and psychobiological mechanisms such as the placebo and nocebo effects. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 2,444 physicians at a major academic pediatric hospital in Boston (October 2024-February 2025). The survey included items on genAI use, perceptions of its clinical and relational impact, and associated concerns. A total of 319 (13%) completed responses were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: Within 2 years of the public release, 65.2% of respondents had used genAI tools, most commonly for administrative tasks like writing emails (55.8%) and documentation (31.3%). Use was more common among younger physicians and men. A majority believed genAI could improve patient care (60.7%) and increase time for direct interaction (65.7%). However, views were more divided regarding its ability to support empathetic care or influence placebo effects, with many physicians expressing neutrality or uncertainty. Notably, 50.8% agreed that genAI-human interactions could increase patient anxiety, indicating concern about potential nocebo effects. Perspectives on broader genAI adoption were mixed, with 30.6% expressing concern and 37.7% neutral. Conclusion: Physicians are rapidly adopting genAI tools, primarily for administrative use, while remaining cautious about its relational and psychological implications. These findings underscore the importance of addressing ethical concerns and supporting clinicians as they navigate this evolving triadic relationship between physician, patient, and genAI.
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.