ArticleInternational journal of critical illness and injury science
Adoption, perceived value, and barriers to generative artificial intelligence in emergency medicine: A cross-sectional survey of Latin American clinicians.
Article in International journal of critical illness and injury science. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly used by healthcare professionals, yet empirical data on adoption among Latin American emergency medicine clinicians remain limited. Methods: A voluntary, anonymous, cross-sectional online survey was administered to emergency medicine professionals across Latin America (April-October 2025). The Spanish-language instrument, pilot-tested before deployment, assessed AI familiarity, use patterns, perceived value, risks, governance, and training needs. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were used for analysis. Results: A total of 123 respondents from 16 countries were analyzed. Most practiced in public or mixed healthcare settings (71.3%) and had over 10 years of experience (61.3%). Familiarity with generative AI was moderate to high (76.9%), and professional use was common (78.3%), with ChatGPT the dominant platform (81.0%). Adoption patterns were homogeneous across countries, with no significant associations between country of origin and familiarity, frequency of use, or platform preference. Primary applications included research and literature review (66.1%), medical education (59.1%), and clinical documentation (40.9%). Nearly half reported high perceived utility (49.6%), and 51.7% noted improvements in productivity. Major concerns included misinformation, erosion of clinical judgment (56.2% each), algorithmic bias (53.7%), and legal liability (46.3%). Institutional AI governance was nearly absent, with only 7.4% reporting existing policies. Despite this, 88.4% expressed interest in formal AI training and 65.6% supported integration into clinical guidelines. Conclusions: Latin American emergency clinicians are rapidly adopting generative AI with perceived benefits across multiple domains, but almost entirely without governance frameworks or structured training, highlighting an urgent need for regional policy and education infrastructure.
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.