ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2025
Generative artificial intelligence in medicine: a mixed-methods survey of UK general practitioners.
Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shadow AI in Swedish Health Care: Qualitative Analysis of Physicians' Free-Text Answers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Readability Optimization of Layperson Summaries in Urological Oncology Clinical Trials: Outcomes from the BRIDGE-AI 8 Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Health Care Professionals' Experiences and Opinions About Generative AI and Ambient Scribes in Clinical Documentation: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Triadic relations in healthcare: surveying physicians' perspectives on generative AI integration and its role on empathy, the placebo effect and patient care.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- General practitioners' opinions of generative artificial intelligence in the UK: An online survey.Digital healthArticle
- Global Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedic Surgery: Findings from the 2025 ABC Travelling Fellowship Survey.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the opinions of general practitioners (GPs) in the UK about the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools in primary care. Methods and analysis: At the beginning of 2024, using a convenience sample, we administered an online mixed-methods survey to registered GPs currently working in the UK. Results: A total of 1006 GPs responded, with 53% being male and 54% over 46 years old. One-fifth of GPs reported having used AI for clinical practice, with male doctors and those in bigger cities being more likely to have used it. 80% of respondents expressed a need for more training in understanding these tools. GPs at least somewhat agreed AI would improve documentation (59%) and patient information gathering (56%). 55% felt AI could increase inequities and 54% saw potential for patient harm, but 47% believed it could enhance healthcare efficiency. GPs who used these tools were significantly more optimistic about the scope for generative AI in improving clinical tasks. One-third of GPs left comments that were classified into four major themes: (1) lack of familiarity and understanding with AI, (2) role of AI in clinical practice, (3) concerns about AI and (4) AI and the future of healthcare. Conclusions: This study highlights UK GPs' developing perspectives on generative AI in clinical practice, emphasising the need for more training. Many GPs reported a lack of knowledge and experience with this technology, although a portion already used non-medical grade technology for clinical tasks, with the risks that this entails.
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.