ArticleBMC medical education2026
Hearing health professionals' attitudes and perceived skills toward artificial intelligence.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into healthcare, understanding health professionals’ perceptions and comfort with these technologies is gaining importance. This study investigated hearing health professionals’ eHealth literacy, perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI), and AI self-efficacy, examining how these constructs vary across professions and relate to use of AI. It also explored their interrelationships and documented training needs and preferred providers of that training to support the integration of AI into clinical practice.
methodsAn online survey was conducted among hearing health professionals (audiologists and hearing-aid acousticians) in the province of Quebec, Canada. It included validated instruments to assess eHealth literacy (eHEALS), perceptions of AI (SHAIP), and AI self-efficacy (AISES and an adapted RUSH scale). Participants also reported their use of AI (personal and professional), sociodemographic and professional characteristics, and their AI training needs, including preferred types of organizations to deliver that training.
resultsData from 114 professionals (mean age 38.1 ± 1 years; 75.5% women) showed that eHealth literacy scores were similar across professions and between AI users and non-users. Perceptions of AI were more positive among hearing-aid acousticians and among participants using AI, regardless of their profession. While AI self-efficacy did not differ by profession, scores were higher among AI users. All participants recognized the need for AI training, with, surprisingly, professional orders and the corporate sector more often identified as preferred providers than post-secondary institutions.
conclusionsThis study revealed that hearing health professionals who had already adopted AI into their practice showed more positive perceptions of AI and better AI self-efficacy. AI training, and those providing it, should consider professionals’ current attitudes and perceived skills towards AI to facilitate its integration into clinical practice.
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.