ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence in Japan: a focus group interview study of healthcare providers.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare is accelerating, raising important questions regarding its implications for clinical practice and the roles of healthcare providers (HCPs). Despite significant technical advances, strategies for engaging frontline stakeholders in developing and implementing medical AI remain underexplored. Therefore, this qualitative study aimed to understand the views and perspectives of stakeholders regarding the use of AI in healthcare. Methods: We examined the perspectives of 37 healthcare professionals (doctors, nurses, and allied HCPs) in Japan through a series of focus group interviews conducted in 2022. Participants discussed three clinical scenarios involving AI technologies for lung cancer detection, voice recognition during consultations, and healthcare monitoring. A thematic analysis was conducted to explore the views of HCPs on the use of AI in healthcare. Results: Diverse and sometimes contrasting views were obtained on the benefits, risks, and practical challenges associated with AI in healthcare. Participants reflected on issues such as algorithmic accuracy, bias, responsibility, and the risk of over-reliance. They also raised fundamental questions regarding how AI might redefine the concepts of disease, patient autonomy, and the boundaries between healthcare and everyday life. Although AI was generally considered a support tool for clinical judgement, concerns were raised regarding its potential to reshape healthcare workflows, exacerbate inequalities, and shift professional roles. Conclusion: The results highlight the importance of involving stakeholders in the early stages of AI development to anticipate its broader implications. Beyond regulating AI as a device, designing healthcare systems that are adaptable, inclusive, and human-centred is necessary. This study provides empirical insight into how HCPs conceptualise AI and emphasises the need for anticipatory governance frameworks grounded in real-world 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.