ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2026
AI-powered tools in family medicine: Bridging technology and practice.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the perceptions, attitudes, and readiness of family physicians in Saudi Arabia toward the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical practice and to identify factors influencing its use. Methods: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted between April and July 2025 among family medicine physicians across Saudi Arabia. A validated questionnaire captured demographic and professional characteristics, current and past AI use, perceived benefits and risks, factors influencing adoption, and preferred physician-AI collaboration models. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, bivariate tests, and multivariable logistic regression to identify independent predictors of AI use. Results: Of 400 invited physicians, 345 responded (response rate 86.3%). Overall, 45.8% reported using AI tools in the past year, most commonly ChatGPT (65.2%). AI use was more prevalent among physicians aged 25-34 years, those with ≤5 years of experience, Saudi nationals, residents, and those in tertiary hospitals. High awareness (70.2%) and willingness to learn (81.0%) were reported, with 81.6% supporting AI-related training. Key adoption drivers were reliability (80.4%), efficiency (70.3%), and ease of use (69.7%), while major barriers included lack of high-quality data (69.7%), inadequate algorithms (57.6%), and integration challenges (47.0%). Most respondents (76.5%) preferred a physician-led, AI-assisted model. Conclusion: Family physicians in Saudi Arabia show good engagement with AI and strong interest in training, alongside concerns over reliability, data quality, and workflow integration. Adoption is shaped by age, experience, and workplace setting. Addressing these barriers through targeted education, robust governance, and codesigned integration strategies could enhance AI uptake in family medicine.
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.