ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2026
Exploring AI scribes in Norwegian general practice: a qualitative individual interview study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Misaligned by design: evaluating and deploying generative AI for the real-world conditions of primary care: a Nordic and European perspective.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- AI-Assisted Clinical Documentation in Routine Danish General Practice: Quantitative Pre-Post Study.JMIR human factors · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore how Artificial intelligence (AI) scribes influence Norwegian general practitioners' (GPs) clinical practice, focusing on their impact on workflow, consultation routines, and professional responsibility, and to explore GPs reflections on AI technology and its alignment with their needs, expectations and ethical considerations in primary care.
designQualitative individual interview study using systematic text condensation (STC).
settingGeneral practice in Norway. SUBJECTS: Ten GPs with more than 3 months' regular use of an AI scribe. Participants were self-selected early adopters.
resultsThe GPs in our study reported that using AI scribe markedly saved time, while reducing stress levels. The technology improved consultation structure and patient focus, though some GPs missed their personal writing style and found the language overly standardised. The tool sometime struggled capturing nuances during complex discussions. Occasional transcription errors, and hallucinations highlighted the need for careful review. GPs expressed concern regarding data privacy and regulatory uncertainty but maintained a stance of critical trust. Overall, the AI scribe was seen as a major innovation that enhances efficiency and patient care, provided its outputs remain under vigilant control.
conclusionAccording to the respondents, AI scribes influence GPs daily routines and professional identity by enhancing documentation efficiency, reducing workload and enabling GPs to focus more on patient care. However, they may introduce new areas for error and subtle shifts in clinical practice, such as reliance on AI-generated text. Responsible integration requires collaborations on guidelines, training and further research to balance efficiency gains with patient centred care and address long-term impacts.
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.