ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2026
Online survey assessing US primary care physicians' attitudes toward AI use in clinical administrative tasks.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2026. 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.
- Assessing Primary Care Physicians' Readiness for AI-Based Adaptive Learning: Perceptions, Barriers, and Learning Needs in Northern Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo examine primary care physicians' attitudes regarding artificial intelligence (AI) use for administrative clinical tasks.
methodsWeb-based survey with US physicians in family medicine or internal medicine (N=420, response rate 5.13%). Two hypothetical AI tools for administrative clinical activities were described. We examined physicians' attitudes towards AI tools, and their associations with practice years, exposure to AI, use case and stakeholder type were evaluated using generalised estimating equations.
resultsParticipants were on average 49.6 years (SD=12.5) and 56.7% men (238/420). Physicians with fewer practice years were more likely to endorse the tools' benefits (OR 1.70-1.96), the tools' benefits outweighing risks (OR 1.79-2.06) and their openness to use (OR 1.63-1.83), and were less likely to endorse disclosure of AI use (OR 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.998)). Physicians with AI exposure were more likely to agree the tools' benefits outweighed their risks (OR 1.51 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.16)). Physicians were more likely to endorse the tools' benefit to physicians (OR 4.94 (95% CI 4.16 to 5.86)) and physicians' openness to using them (OR 3.53 (95% CI 2.97 to 4.20)) than they were to endorse their benefit to patients and patients' openness. Physicians rated an AI tool for notes generation as more beneficial than one for billing assistance (OR 1.73 (95% CI 1.39 to 2.16)). DISCUSSION: Although the findings are preliminary, US primary care physicians' attitudes toward AI for clinical administration varied by practice years, prior exposure to AI, use case and stakeholder type.
conclusionOur findings highlight opportunities to develop training and implementation strategies in service of advancing safe and effective integration of administrative AI tools in primary care.
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.