ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Public Health Practice: A Cross-Sectional Study of Practical Determinants Among Healthcare Professionals.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly embedded in public health workflows, yet adoption among practitioners remains uneven and is shaped by knowledge, legal awareness, and operational barriers. This cross-sectional study characterised determinants of AI adoption among healthcare professionals and examined how legal concern moderates the translation of technical knowledge into practical use, at a single Romanian tertiary academic centre.
methodsWe surveyed 93 healthcare professionals (physicians, nurses, public health specialists, residents) at the "Pius Brînzeu" Clinical Emergency County Hospital and "Victor Babeș" University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timișoara. Participants were classified as AI adopters or non-adopters. Likert-derived composite scores (0-100; Cronbach's α 0.79-0.88) quantified knowledge, trust, legal concern, privacy concern, and workflow confidence. Group comparisons used independent-samples
resultsAdopters (n = 51) were younger (34.7 ± 7.5 vs. 43.2 ± 8.5 years;
conclusionsIn this modest, single-centre sample, AI adoption was independently associated with knowledge and trust, and legal concern was independently and negatively associated with usage intensity; the apparent dampening of the knowledge-usage relationship by legal concern was suggestive but not statistically confirmed. Targeted legal-regulatory literacy and structured training may support practical AI uptake in public health settings, pending confirmation in larger, multicentre studies.
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.