ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
The Challenges of AI Applications in Health Care: Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe application of AI in clinical settings is becoming increasingly widespread, exerting a profound impact on health care professionals' work patterns, decision-making efficiency, and clinical practice. However, there is currently a lack of systematic research on health care professionals' actual experiences, barriers to use, and attitudes toward the clinical application of AI. AI has shown great potential to streamline clinical workflows and improve service quality, yet its real-world adoption faces notable obstacles.
objectiveThis study aimed to comprehensively explore the multifaceted challenges encountered during the implementation of AI in routine health care work. The findings are intended to offer empirical evidence and practical references for improving the deployment, management, and popularization of AI tools in clinical settings.
methodsWe adopted a qualitative design with inductive thematic analysis. Through purposive sampling, 23 health care workers with diverse job roles, professional titles, and work experience were recruited for one-on-one semistructured interviews. Two researchers independently performed data coding and cross-checked the results to ensure intercoder reliability. NVivo (version 15.0; Lumivero) software was used to organize the qualitative data and support thematic analysis.
resultsAll data were fully transcribed. The interviews identified 5 themes and 13 subthemes related to the challenges of applying AI in the health care sector. The five themes are as follows: (1) construction of AI trust mechanisms and shaping of rational cognition, (2) AI-assisted decision-making models and health care collaboration, (3) AI user experience, (4) barriers to AI use and risk concerns, and (5) attitudes toward AI substitution and perception of core health care value. Participants generally recognized the value of AI in clinical work, yet they highlighted multiple practical barriers and potential risks.
conclusionsThe application of AI in health care is shaped by the interplay of complex factors spanning technology, organization, cognition, and regulation. A balanced perspective is essential to ensure that AI integration enhances rather than undermines clinical practice. While AI has great potential to boost efficiency and support clinical decision-making, it also highlights risks such as overreliance, cognitive decline, and the long-term deterioration of professional skills and independent clinical reasoning. Accordingly, efforts should be made to optimize the design and deployment of AI tools, along with a fundamental rethinking of professional training and governance frameworks. Future work should prioritize developing intelligence-augmenting rather than intelligence-replacing systems. Critical evaluation of AI outputs needs to be incorporated into clinical education, and relevant policies should be formulated to prevent cognitive complacency. The ultimate goal is to achieve a sound, sustainable, and people-centered integration of AI into routine clinical practice.
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.