ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Global physician perspectives on artificial intelligence in healthcare across 50 countries and territories.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities, clinical integration remains limited, partly due to an incomplete understanding of physicians' real-world engagement and determinants of adoption. We conducted an international cross-sectional survey between June and September 2024 using a 30-item questionnaire translated into 13 languages, analysing 1049 complete responses from 50 countries and territories. Most respondents reported fundamental to advanced understanding of AI (86.5%) and believed it would improve clinical practice (80.2%), particularly in efficiency (53.5%), timeliness (52.0%), and effectiveness (44.0%). However, only 27.8% had used AI in practice, and 17.7% had received formal training. Mann-Whitney analyses showed that positive attitudes and formal training were associated with greater AI understanding, familiarity and usage (all p ≤ 0.008). In multivariable regression, physicians with formal training were more than three times as likely to use AI (adjusted OR 3.40; 95% CI 2.31-5.01; p < 0.001), and those working in institutions with AI technologies were more than eight times as likely (adjusted OR 8.43; 95% CI 5.74-12.34; p < 0.001). These findings indicate a persistent gap between awareness and adoption driven primarily by structural factors, particularly the absence of formal AI training and limited institutional investment in AI technologies.
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.