ArticleJMIR human factors2026
AI-Assisted Clinical Documentation in Routine Danish General Practice: Quantitative Pre-Post Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Administrative workload in general practice limits time for direct patient care. AI-assisted documentation has been proposed as a way to reduce the documentation burden, but evidence from routine primary care settings remains limited. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate general practitioners' (GPs) acceptance of AI-assisted documentation and its association with documentation time and clinical note quality in routine Danish general practice. Methods: We conducted a quantitative pragmatic pre-post quality improvement evaluation in Danish general practice. A total of 20 GPs documented 239 consultations before and 236 consultations after implementation of an AI-assisted documentation system. Documentation quality, structure, clinical clarity, and documentation time categories were self-assessed using standardized audit forms completed immediately after each consultation. Technology acceptance and usability were assessed using the technology acceptance model (TAM) and the System Usability Scale (SUS). Results: Self-assessed documentation structure increased from 3.99 to 4.45, while self-reported documentation time categories decreased from 2.85 to 2.29. Technology acceptance and usability were high (TAM domain means 3.76-4.19; SUS mean 77.5). GP-level paired analyses showed moderate improvements in structure and clarity and a reduction in documentation time. Combined blinded external assessments showed higher postimplementation scores for quality, structure, and clinical clarity, although reviewer-specific ratings diverged, and interrater reliability was low. The association between documentation time and perceived quality was negligible. TAM and SUS indicated high clinician acceptance. Conclusions: AI-assisted documentation was associated with lower self-reported documentation time categories while maintaining or modestly improving perceived clinical note quality. These findings support the feasibility of AI-assisted documentation in primary care, while highlighting the need for controlled studies with objective time measurement and longer follow-up.
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.