ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions of AI-Assisted Clinical Decision-Making in Jordan: A Qualitative Study of Trust, Accountability, System Readiness, and Professional Practice.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in clinical decision-support systems, yet its adoption in low- and middle-income countries, including Jordan, remains limited and underexplored. Understanding how healthcare professionals perceive AI-assisted clinical decision-making is essential for safe and contextually appropriate implementation. This study explored healthcare professionals' perceptions of AI-assisted clinical decision-making in Jordan, with particular attention to trust, accuracy, accountability, professional judgement, digital literacy, and health-system readiness. Medication-related safety and prescribing concerns were examined as secondary cross-cutting issues where they emerged from participants' accounts.
methodsA qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 22 purposively sampled healthcare professionals from public, private, and university-affiliated healthcare institutions in Amman, Irbid, and Zarqa. Participants included physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and allied health professionals with varied specialties and levels of seniority. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis. Member checking, peer debriefing, reflexive memos, and audit trails were used to enhance trustworthiness, and reporting followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ).
resultsEight overarching themes were identified: conditional trust in AI-assisted clinical decision-making; concerns regarding accuracy and confident algorithmic errors; accountability and professional responsibility; AI as an adjunct rather than a substitute for clinical judgement; the influence of experience, specialty, and digital literacy on AI acceptance; Jordanian health-system readiness; privacy, confidentiality, and algorithmic bias; and training requirements for safe AI use. Medication-related safety emerged as a cross-cutting concern, particularly in relation to dosing, polypharmacy, drug-drug and drug-herb interactions, and the risk of over-reliance on AI-generated recommendations.
conclusionsHealthcare professionals in Jordan expressed cautious but constructive views toward AI-assisted clinical decision-making. AI was perceived as potentially useful when used to support, rather than replace, professional judgement. Participants' accounts suggest that safe implementation depends on local validation, clear accountability frameworks, ethical data governance, interprofessional training, and careful consideration of medication-safety expertise where AI tools influence prescribing or therapeutic decisions. These findings highlight the importance of context-sensitive AI governance strategies that support trustworthy, accountable, and professionally supervised AI adoption in healthcare.
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.