Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41312268›Full record

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.

Vanda Faria, Nathan Goturi, Amanda Dynak, Cameron Talbert, Nicholas Pondelis, Marco Annoni, Charlotte Blease, Scott A Holmes, Eric A Moulton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Vanda FariaBrain and Eye Pain Imaging Lab, Pain and Affective Neuroscience Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Nathan GoturiBrain and Eye Pain Imaging Lab, Pain and Affective Neuroscience Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Amanda DynakBrain and Eye Pain Imaging Lab, Pain and Affective Neuroscience Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Cameron TalbertBrain and Eye Pain Imaging Lab, Pain and Affective Neuroscience Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Nicholas PondelisBrain and Eye Pain Imaging Lab, Pain and Affective Neuroscience Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Marco AnnoniBioethics Research Unit - CNR Interdepartmental Center for Research Ethics and Integrity (CID-Ethics), National Research Council, Rome, Italy.
Charlotte Blease *Participatory eHealth & Health Data Research Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Scott A Holmes *Pediatric Pain Pathways Lab, Pain and Affective Neuroscience Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Eric A Moulton *Brain and Eye Pain Imaging Lab, Pain and Affective Neuroscience Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

empathygenerative AIpatient-physician relationphysicians’ perspectivestriadic relationship

Identifiers

PMID41312268
PMCPMC12646921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.