SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024
Health Care Professionals' Experience of Using AI: Systematic Review With Narrative Synthesis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare-A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Ethical and practical challenges of generative AI in healthcare and proposed solutions: a survey.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Hospital Human Resource Managers' Perspectives on Organizational Readiness for Generative AI Skills: Qualitative Descriptive Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence, Wearable Technologies, and Virtual Reality in Precision Nutrition and Obesity Management: A Critical Narrative Review.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Exploring Perceptions of Leveraging AI to Improve Outcomes in Maternal, Sexual, and Reproductive Health in Sub-Saharan Africa: Exploratory Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Divergent impacts of explainable AI for dermatological diagnosis on clinicians versus lay people.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Global physician perspectives on artificial intelligence in healthcare across 50 countries and territories.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Heterogeneity in nurses' attitudes toward artificial intelligence: a latent profile analysis.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Article
- "Black box" artificial intelligence for mortality prediction: a mixed-methods study of palliative care team, patient, and caregiver perspectives.Annals of palliative medicine · 2026Article
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on the utility of chronic postsurgical pain prediction profiles in perioperative care: a qualitative study.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Article
- Between map and maze: reframing trust in healthcare AI.AI & society · 2026Review
- Is accuracy enough? trust and barriers to AI-based clinical decision support in clinical neurophysiology.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Article
- Review
- Perceived Trust in Artificial Intelligence in Eye Care: Demographic Determinants and Variations in Attitudes Among Ophthalmologists and Residents.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Public Knowledge and Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Physicians in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Documentation: A Cross-Sectional Study of Healthcare Professionals.Cureus · 2025Article
- ETHICS of AI Adoption and Deployment in Health Care: Progress, Challenges, and Next Steps.JMIR AI · 2025Article
- Sociotechnical influences on the adoption and use of AI-enabled clinical decision support systems in ophthalmology: a theory-based interview study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Partners in Practice: Primary Care Physicians Define the Role of Artificial Intelligence.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been a substantial increase in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) tools for clinical decision support. Historically, these were mostly knowledge-based systems, but recent advances include non-knowledge-based systems using some form of machine learning. The ability of health care professionals to trust technology and understand how it benefits patients or improves care delivery is known to be important for their adoption of that technology. For non-knowledge-based AI tools for clinical decision support, these issues are poorly understood.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to qualitatively synthesize evidence on the experiences of health care professionals in routinely using non-knowledge-based AI tools to support their clinical decision-making.
methodsIn June 2023, we searched 4 electronic databases, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science, with no language or date limit. We also contacted relevant experts and searched reference lists of the included studies. We included studies of any design that reported the experiences of health care professionals using non-knowledge-based systems for clinical decision support in their work settings. We completed double independent quality assessment for all included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We used a theoretically informed thematic approach to synthesize the findings.
resultsAfter screening 7552 titles and 182 full-text articles, we included 25 studies conducted in 9 different countries. Most of the included studies were qualitative (n=13), and the remaining were quantitative (n=9) and mixed methods (n=3). Overall, we identified 7 themes: health care professionals' understanding of AI applications, level of trust and confidence in AI tools, judging the value added by AI, data availability and limitations of AI, time and competing priorities, concern about governance, and collaboration to facilitate the implementation and use of AI. The most frequently occurring are the first 3 themes. For example, many studies reported that health care professionals were concerned about not understanding the AI outputs or the rationale behind them. There were issues with confidence in the accuracy of the AI applications and their recommendations. Some health care professionals believed that AI provided added value and improved decision-making, and some reported that it only served as a confirmation of their clinical judgment, while others did not find it useful at all.
conclusionsOur review identified several important issues documented in various studies on health care professionals' use of AI tools in real-world health care settings. Opinions of health care professionals regarding the added value of AI tools for supporting clinical decision-making varied widely, and many professionals had concerns about their understanding of and trust in this technology. The findings of this review emphasize the need for concerted efforts to optimize the integration of AI tools in real-world health care settings.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022336359; https://tinyurl.com/2yunvkmb.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.