Use, Concerns, and Perspectives on AI in Health Care Among French Health Professionals and Students: Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey.

Background: AI is increasingly discussed and deployed in health care, yet safe and effective implementation depends on the preparedness, trust, and training of the professionals who are expected to use these tools. Objective: This study aimed to assess current AI use, perceived benefits and concerns, confidence, and training needs among French health care professionals and students. Methods: We conducted a national web-based cross-sectional survey distributed through the PulseLife professional community between December 4, 2024, and March 5, 2025. The survey instrument was administered in French and included respondent characteristic items together with 12 substantive closed-ended questions covering current AI use, confidence, perceived benefits, and concerns, and interest in AI-related training. Access was restricted to authenticated individual PulseLife accounts, and multiple submissions from the same account were not allowed. Questions were not mandatory; incomplete questionnaires were retained for item-level analyses, and percentages were calculated using item-specific denominators. Because the exact invitation denominator was not retained by the platform, view, participation, and completion rates could not be calculated. Descriptive statistics and Pearson chi-square tests were performed using R. Internal consistency and exploratory psychometric properties were assessed using the Cronbach α, exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis. Results: A total of 1625 respondents participated, including 1212 (74.6%) health professionals and 413 (25.4%) students. Among professionals, physicians represented the largest group (642/1212, 53%), followed by nurses (232/1212, 19.1%) and pharmacists (92/1212, 7.6%). Only 6.6% (90/1366) of the respondents reported prior AI-specific training, whereas 78.3% (920/1175) wished to receive such training. Confidence in AI for diagnosis and patient management remained limited: only 9.2% (120/1301) of the respondents reported being very confident. Nearly half (673/1455, 46.3%) of the respondents who answered this item reported no current AI use in professional activity, whereas 10.5% (153/1455) reported frequent use. Physicians and younger respondents reported more frequent AI use, and prior AI training was associated with greater confidence (P<.001 in all cases). Commonly perceived benefits included improved diagnosis (774/1625, 47.6%), time savings (685/1625, 42.2%), reduced medical errors (634/1625, 39%), and improved patient follow-up (593/1625, 36.5%). Frequently reported concerns included algorithmic bias (785/1625, 48.3%), limited transparency (666/1625, 41%), deterioration of the patient-health care professional relationship (628/1625, 38.6%), and data confidentiality (557/1625, 34.3%). Conclusions: In this national French sample, formal AI training was uncommon despite high interest in receiving it. These findings support the need for more structured educational initiatives in AI literacy across undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing professional education. Because this study relied on a convenience sample recruited through a digital platform, the findings should be interpreted as descriptive and exploratory rather than nationally representative.