Cited by 54Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Physicians’ attitudes and knowledge toward artificial intelligence in medicine: Benefits and drawbacks

Open access
Al-Medfa, Mohammed Khalid, Al-Ansari, Ahmed M.S., Darwish, Abdullah Hassan, Qreeballa, Tasabeeh Ahmed, Jahrami, Haitham·2023·Heliyon

Abstract

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the medical field is increasing and is expected to shape future clinical practice and job security. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the opinions and attitudes of practicing physicians in Bahrain regarding the benefits and drawbacks of AI for their future daily practice. A cross-sectional survey of practicing physicians with a minimum of five years' experience across the main secondary and tertiary care hospitals in Bahrain was conducted. An online questionnaire was used to collect data on demographics, knowledge of AI, attitudes towards the use of AI in 10 tasks of daily clinical practice, and opinions on the benefits and drawbacks of AI. A total of 114 physicians participated in the survey. Among them, 43 (37.7%) were registered psychiatrists, 15 (13.2%) were pathologists, 17 (14.9%) were radiologists, and 39 (34.2%) were surgical specialists. The participants' attitudes were overall positive towards AI. Pathologists were particularly in favor of using AI to "Formulate personalized medication and/or treatment plans for patients" and to "Interview patients in a range of settings to obtain medical history." Most participants agreed that AI would reduce the time needed to establish a diagnosis and negatively affect employment rates. There were no correlations between the responses and the participants' age, gender, years of experience, or AI knowledge. This study demonstrates that the attitudes towards the use of AI in medicine among practicing physicians in Bahrain are similar to those of physicians in developed countries in that they are positive and welcoming of AI implementation in practice. However, the potential effects of AI on job security are a major concern.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14744

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 19 · Cited by 54

Authors
Al-Medfa, M. K., Al-Ansari, A. M. S., Darwish, A. H., Qreeballa, T. A., & Jahrami, H.
Affiliations
  • Arabian Gulf University (BH)
  • Salmaniya Medical Complex (BH)
Corresponding author
Al-Ansari, Ahmed M.S.
Venue
Heliyon
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-04
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
e14744
ISSN
2405-8440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4353051702
Cited by
54
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 3
FWCI
2.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Heliyon (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
artificial intelligence in healthcare, physician attitudes, advantages and disadvantages of AI, job security, AI and employment, Bahrain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review