ArticleResearch square2026
When Do Physicians Trust AI? The Role of Clinical Context in Decision Support: SMART vignette study.
Article in Research square, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Physicians' confidence in clinical AI tools and perceptions of their effectiveness can influence the adoption of these tools in practice, which in turn, could affect the quality of patient care. However, the factors shaping these perceptions remain poorly understood. Methods: We surveyed U.S. family medicine and internal medicine physicians (n = 420) using a sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial (SMART) vignette design involving primary care scenarios with an AI-enabled clinical decision support system (AI-CDSS). We varied three vignette characteristics, each at two levels: clinical decision types (prescription or referral), amount of information provided about the AI-CDS tool (more or less), and the tool's recommendations (treat or do not treat). We used regression models to assess whether clinical decision type or amount of information about the AI-CDSS affected physicians' confidence and their perceptions of AI-CDSS's effectiveness, use of AI in clinical practice, and clinical decisions. We also examined associations between physicians' prior AI exposure and these perceptions. Results: Physicians' prior exposure to AI was positively associated with their confidence in their decisions (β = 0.274, adjusted p = 0.042) and perceptions of effectiveness of the AI-CDSS (β = 0.350, adjusted p = 0.006). Neither clinical decision type nor amount of information significantly affected perceived confidence or effectiveness. Exploratory analyses revealed that physicians assigned to a prescription scenario reported lower trust in the AI-CDSS (β=-0.211, p = 0.027), fewer benefits of using it (β=-0.179, p = 0.042), and greater reliance on their own judgment (β = 0.154, p = 0.029) versus those assigned to a psychiatric referral scenario. Prior AI exposure was also associated with greater agreement that the AI result contributed to the final decision (β = 0.305, p = 0.010). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that prior knowledge of and exposure to AI may enhance physicians' confidence in their clinical decisions and their perceptions of the effectiveness of AI-CDS tools, underscoring the importance of predeployment assessment of human factors in clinical AI implementation. Training in AI use and AI-assisted decision-making should be integrated into physicians' education, while factors influencing physicians' confidence merit continued examination.
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.