ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2026
Clinicians' and people who use drugs' perspectives on artificial intelligence in addiction medicine.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsArtificial intelligence (AI) may improve addiction medicine workflows and health outcomes but raises questions about data privacy and unintended harms for people who use drugs (PWUD). This qualitative study aimed to understand the perspectives of clinicians and PWUD regarding perceived benefits and concerns about clinical AI in addiction medicine.
designA qualitative study with one-on-one semi-structured interviews about AI.
settingAddiction medicine clinicians in Rhode Island (n = 7), Massachusetts (n = 2) and Pennsylvania (n = 3), USA. PWUD (n = 25) residing in Rhode Island.
participantsIn 2025, a purposive sample of 12 clinicians and 25 PWUD participated. Eligible clinicians were English-speaking, ≥18 years old, licensed and provided care to PWUD exposed to xylazine in Rhode Island, Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. PWUD recruited from four Rhode Island social service organizations were eligible if they reported past-month illicit fentanyl and xylazine use, lived in Rhode Island or Massachusetts and were English-speaking and ≥18 years old. Eight (67%) clinicians were women and 10 (83%) were white non-Hispanic. Fifteen (60%) PWUD were men and 17 (68%) were white non-Hispanic. MEASUREMENTS: Transcribed audio-recorded interviews exploring benefits and concerns about clinical AI in addiction medicine. Clinician interviews were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis to assess the breadth of clinical experience, whereas PWUD interviews were analyzed following inductive thematic analysis to assess depth of lived experience. Five themes were produced.
resultsFive themes were generated: (1) transparently developed and accurate clinical AI tools offer practical benefits; (2) clinician comfort with clinical AI hinges on transparent development and assurances against the perpetuation of drug-related stigma; (3) clinical AI may not keep pace with the volatile and regionally specific drug supply; (4) PWUD have limited AI knowledge and some characterized AI as untrustworthy; and (5) PWUD are altruistically motivated to release medical data for clinical AI development but want control over identifiable data usage. SUMMARY: Clinicians and patients feel that artificial intelligence in addiction medicine holds promise, but they are concerned about clinical relevance, stigma perpetuation and the privacy of potentially incriminating data about illicit drug use.
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.