ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Artificial Intelligence Legislation Literacy, Governance Readiness, and Adoption Intentions in Romanian Healthcare: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesAs Romanian health systems deploy artificial intelligence (AI), uptake depends on navigating the EU AI Act, GDPR, the Medical Device Regulation (MDR), and national rules. We measured AI legislation literacy, governance readiness, and adoption intentions among Romanian healthcare professionals, identified implementation phenotypes, and tested whether confidence mediates the literacy-adoption link. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn a multicenter cross-sectional survey (N = 109), participants completed a 20-item AI Legislation Literacy Index (0-20) plus scales rated form one to five measuring legislative confidence, adoption intention, readiness, trust, and perceived compliance burden. We used PCA and k-means clustering, multivariable logistic regression for high adoption intention (≥4), and covariate-adjusted mediation (5000 bootstrap resamples).
resultsMean age was 38.7 ± 9.8 years, and 60.6% of participants were female. Literacy was moderate (11.2 ± 4.1/20) and familiarity favored GDPR (69.7%) over the EU AI Act (25.7%). Literacy correlated with confidence (=0.52), whereas confidence correlated with adoption intention (=0.41); trust correlated positively (=0.44) and burden correlated negatively (=-0.29) with adoption. High adoption intention was noted in 50.5% of participants and was independently associated with higher literacy (aOR 1.85 per +1 SD; 95% CI 1.20-2.85), higher trust (aOR 1.72; 1.13-2.63), lower burden (aOR 0.64; 0.43-0.95), and prior AI training (aOR 2.10; 1.03-4.29). Three phenotypes emerged (Confident Adopters n = 44; Cautious Compliers n = 36; Skeptical Low Literacy n = 29), with adoption scores of 4.2 ± 0.5 vs. 3.1 ± 0.7 in the highest and lowest groups. Mediation showed a partial indirect effect via confidence (0.13; 95% CI 0.05-0.24).
conclusionsAI legislation literacy, confidence, trust, and perceived burden are key, modifiable determinants of AI adoption intentions; phenotype-guided strategies can target training, governance support, and post-deployment monitoring readiness. The revised framing explicitly situates these determinants within recent AI-specific regulatory and technical developments, including high-risk AI obligations, AI-enabled medical device change control, generative/large multimodal model risks, and lifecycle monitoring.
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.