ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Acceptance of generative AI-assisted medical decision-making among Chinese physicians and patients and its ethical determinants: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is increasingly being integrated into medical decision-making, yet ethical challenges continue to hinder its widespread clinical implementation. Existing research has paid limited attention to the ethical determinants of acceptance and differences in perceptions among key stakeholder groups. This study examined acceptance of GAI-assisted medical decision-making among Chinese physicians, patients, and other healthcare stakeholders, identified its ethical determinants, and explored differences across stakeholder groups to inform ethical governance. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a multistage sampling strategy across healthcare institutions in Henan and Guangdong provinces, China, between December 2025 and January 2026. A total of 533 participants, including healthcare professionals, patients, and other stakeholders, were recruited. A self-developed four-dimensional scale assessing perceived functional value, perceived ethical risk, acceptance intention, and ethical governance expectations was developed through literature review, expert consultation, and pilot testing. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed using SPSS version 26.0 to identify factors associated with acceptance intention. Results: Participants reported a moderate level of acceptance of GAI-assisted medical decision-making (3.68 ± 0.70), while ethical governance expectations received the highest mean score (4.03 ± 0.76). Multivariable regression analysis showed that perceived functional value ( Conclusion: Acceptance of GAI-assisted medical decision-making among Chinese stakeholders is primarily driven by perceived functional value and ethical governance expectations, with significant differences in ethical perceptions across stakeholder groups. These findings provide empirical evidence for developing targeted ethical governance frameworks to facilitate responsible GAI integration into 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.