CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 71Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsRadiology practices and education

Knowledge and perception of primary care healthcare professionals on the use of artificial intelligence as a healthcare tool

Open access
Catalina, Queralt Miró, Fuster-Casanovas, Aïna, Vidal-Alaball, Josep, Escalé-Besa, Anna, Marin-Gomez, Francesc X, Femenia, Joaquim, Solé-Casals, Jordi·2023·DIGITAL HEALTH
DOI 10.1177/20552076231180511PMC PMC10286543
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective: The rapid digitisation of healthcare data and the sheer volume being generated means that artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming a new reality in the practice of medicine. For this reason, describing the perception of primary care (PC) healthcare professionals on the use of AI as a healthcare tool and its impact in radiology is crucial to ensure its successful implementation. Methods: Observational cross-sectional study, using the validated Shinners Artificial Intelligence Perception survey, aimed at all PC medical and nursing professionals in the health region of Central Catalonia. Results: The survey was sent to 1068 health professionals, of whom 301 responded. And 85.7% indicated that they understood the concept of AI but there were discrepancies in the use of this tool; 65.8% indicated that they had not received any AI training and 91.4% that they would like to receive training. The mean score for the professional impact of AI was 3.62 points out of 5 (standard deviation (SD) = 0.72), with a higher score among practitioners who had some prior knowledge of and interest in AI. The mean score for preparedness for AI was 2.76 points out of 5 (SD = 0.70), with higher scores for nursing and those who use or do not know if they use AI. Conclusions: The results of this study show that the majority of professionals understood the concept of AI, perceived its impact positively, and felt prepared for its implementation. In addition, despite being limited to a diagnostic aid, the implementation of AI in radiology was a high priority for these professionals.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/20552076231180511

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 52 · Cited by 71

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. [1]Shelmerdine SC Rosendahl K Arthurs OJ. Artificial intelligence in paediatric radiology: international survey of health care professionals’ opinions. Pediatr Radiol 2022; 52: 30– 41. 34642789
  2. [2]Ramesh AN Kambhampati C Monson JRT, et al. Artificial intelligence in medicine. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004; 86: 334– 338. 15333167 PMC1964229
  3. [3]Ávila-Tomás JF Mayer-Pujadas MA Quesada-Varela VJ. Artificial intelligence and its applications in medicine II: current importance and practical applications. Aten primaria 2021; 53: 81– 88. 32571595 PMC7752970
  4. [4]Karimi A HaddadPajouh H. Artificial intelligence, important assistant of scientists and physicians. Galen Med J. 2020; 9: e2048. 34466625 PMC8343766
  5. [6]Fernandes M Vieira SM Leite F, et al. Clinical decision support systems for triage in the emergency department using intelligent systems: a review. Artif Intell Med 2020; 102. 31980099
  6. [7]Goldstein A Shahar Y. An automated knowledge-based textual summarization system for longitudinal, multivariate clinical data. J Biomed Inform 2016; 61: 159– 175. 27039119
  7. [8]Solé-Casals J Anchustegui-Echearte I Marti-Puig P, et al. Discrete cosine transform for the analysis of essential tremor. Front Physiol 2019; 9: 1947. 30705638 PMC6345195
  8. [9]Ting DSW Pasquale LR Peng L, et al. Artificial intelligence and deep learning in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol 2019; 103: 167– 175. 30361278 PMC6362807
  9. [10]Hogarty DT Su JC Phan K, et al. Artificial intelligence in dermatology—where we are and the way to the future: a review. Am J Clin Dermatol 2020; 21: 41– 47. 31278649
  10. [11]Duan F Huang Z Sun Z, et al. Topological network analysis of early Alzheimer’s disease based on resting-state EEG. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2020; 28: 2164– 2172. 32763856
  11. [12]Dutta S Long WJ Brown DFM, et al. Automated detection using natural language processing of radiologists recommendations for additional imaging of incidental findings. Ann Emerg Med 2013; 62: 162– 169. 23548405
  12. [13]Johnson AEW Pollard TJ Berkowitz SJ, et al. MIMIC-CXR, a de-identified publicly available database of chest radiographs with free-text reports. Sci Data 2019; 6: 1– 8. 31831740 PMC6908718
  13. [14]Do HM Spear LG Nikpanah M, et al. Augmented radiologist workflow improves report value and saves time: a potential model for implementation of artificial intelligence. Acad Radiol 2020; 27: 96– 105. 31818390 PMC8189646
  14. [15]Hwang EJ Park S Jin K-N, et al. Development and validation of a deep learning-based automated detection algorithm for major thoracic diseases on chest radiographs. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2: e191095. 30901052 PMC6583308
  15. [16]Wu JT Wong KCL Gur Y, et al. Comparison of chest radiograph interpretations by artificial intelligence algorithm vs radiology residents. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3: e2022779. 33034642 PMC7547369
  16. [17]Gatt ME Spectre G Paltiel O, et al. Chest radiographs in the emergency department: is the radiologist really necessary? Postgrad Med J 2003; 79: 214– 217. 12743338 PMC1742668
  17. [18]Preston CA Marr 3rd JJ Amaraneni KK, et al. Reduction of “callbacks” to the ED due to discrepancies in plain radiograph interpretation. Am J Emerg Med 1998; 16: 160– 162. 9517693
  18. [19]Espinosa JA Nolan TW. Reducing errors made by emergency physicians in interpreting radiographs: longitudinal study. Br Med J 2000; 320: 737– 740. 10720354 PMC27314
  19. [20]Martínez-Torres MD Toral Marín SL García FB, et al. A technological acceptance of e-learning tools used in practical and laboratory teaching, according to the European higher education area. Behav Inf Technol 2008; 27: 495– 505.
  20. [21]Stevenson JE Nilsson GC Petersson GI, et al. Nurses’ experience of using electronic patient records in everyday practice in acute/inpatient ward settings: a literature review. Health Informatics J 2010; 16: 63– 72. 20413414
  21. [22]Shinners L Aggar C Grace S, et al. Exploring healthcare professionals’ perceptions of artificial intelligence: validating a questionnaire using the e-Delphi method. Digit Heal 2021; 7: 20552076211003430. PMC7995296 33815816
  22. [24]Fan W Liu J Zhu S, et al. Investigating the impacting factors for the healthcare professionals to adopt artificial intelligence-based medical diagnosis support system (AIMDSS). Ann Oper Res 2020; 294: 567– 592.
  23. [25]Oh S Kim JH Choi SW, etal. Physician confidence in artificial intelligence: an online mobile survey. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21: e12422. 30907742 PMC6452288
  24. [26]Sarwar S Dent A Faust K, et al. Physician perspectives on integration of artificial intelligence into diagnostic pathology. NPJ Digit Med 2019; 2: 1– 7. PMC6550202 31304375
  25. [27]Diaz O Guidi G Ivashchenko O, et al. Artificial intelligence in the medical physics community: an international survey. Phys Med 2021; 81: 141– 146. 33453506
  26. [29]Sit C Srinivasan R Amlani A, et al. Attitudes and perceptions of UK medical students towards artificial intelligence and radiology: a multicentre survey. Insights Imaging 2020; 11: 14. 32025951 PMC7002761
  27. [30]Health Education England. The Topol review: preparing the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future. An independent report on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Nhs. 2019:102.
  28. [32]Jha S Topol EJ. Adapting to artificial intelligence: radiologists and pathologists as information specialists. JAMA 2016; 316: 2353– 2354. 27898975
  29. [33]Laï MC Brian M Mamzer MF. Perceptions of artificial intelligence in healthcare: findings from a qualitative survey study among actors in France. J Transl Med 2020; 18: 14. 31918710 PMC6953249
  30. [34]Shinners L Grace S Smith S, et al. Exploring healthcare professionals’ perceptions of artificial intelligence: piloting the Shinners Artificial Intelligence Perception tool. Digit Heal 2022; 8: 1– 8. PMC8832586 35154807
  31. [35]Peterson RA Kim Y. On the relationship between coefficient alpha and composite reliability. J Appl Psychol 2013; 98: 194– 198. 23127213
  32. [36]Ware JE Gandek B. Methods for testing data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability: the IQOLA project approach. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 945– 952. 9817111
  33. [37]Coma E Miró Q Medina M, et al. Association between the reduction of face-to-face appointments and the control of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus during the Covid-19 pandemic in Catalonia. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2021; 182: 109127. 34752800 PMC8592525
  34. [38]Catalina QM Fuster-Casanovas A Solé-Casals J, et al. Developing an artificial intelligence model for reading chest X-rays: protocol for a prospective validation study. JMIR Res Protoc 2022; 11: e39536. 36383419 PMC9713620
  35. [39]Escalé-Besa A Fuster-Casanovas A Börve A, et al. Using artificial intelligence as a diagnostic decision support tool in skin disease: protocol for an observational prospective cohort study. JMIR Res Protoc 2022; 11: e37531. 36044249 PMC9475422
  36. [40]Vidal-Alaball J Fibla DR Zapata MA, et al. Artificial intelligence for the detection of diabetic retinopathy in primary care: protocol for algorithm development. JMIR Res Protoc 2019; 8(2): e12539. 30707105 PMC6376335
  37. [42]Chen M Zhang B Cai Z, et al. Acceptance of clinical artificial intelligence among physicians and medical students: a systematic review with cross-sectional survey. Front Med 2022; 9: 990604. PMC9472134 36117979
  38. [43]Civaner MM Uncu Y Bulut F, et al. Artificial intelligence in medical education: a cross-sectional needs assessment. BMC Med Educ 2022; 22: 1– 9. 36352431 PMC9646274
  39. [44]Wartman SA Donald Combs C. Medical education must move from the information age to the age of artificial intelligence. Acad Med 2018; 93: 1107– 1109. 29095704
  40. [45]Liaw W Kakadiaris IA. Artificial intelligence and family medicine: better together. Fam Med 2020; 52: 8– 10. 31914179
  41. [46]Katznelson G Gerke S. The need for health AI ethics in medical school education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2021; 26: 1447– 1458. 33655433
  42. [48]Collins S Couture B Kang MJ, et al. Quantifying and visualizing nursing flowsheet documentation burden in acute and critical care. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2018; 2018: 348– 357. 30815074 PMC6371331
  43. [49]Liu Sheng OR Hu PJH Wei CP, et al. Adoption and diffusion of telemedicine technology in health care organizations: a comparative case study in Hong Kong. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 2009; 8(4): 247–275.
  44. [50]Vidal-Alaball J Seguí FL Domingo JLG, et al. Primary care professionals’ acceptance of medical record-based, store and forward provider-to-provider telemedicine in Catalonia: results of a web-based survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 1– 13. PMC7313088 32521740
  45. [51]Kurowecki D Lee SY Monteiro S, et al. Resident physicians’ perceptions of diagnostic radiology and the declining interest in the specialty. Acad Radiol 2021; 28: 261– 270. 32089466
  46. [53]Akudjedu TN Torre S Khine R, et al. Knowledge, perceptions, and expectations of artificial intelligence in radiography practice: a global radiography workforce survey. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2022; 54: 104– 116. 36535859
  47. [54]Lundeberg MA Fox PW Punćochaŕ J. Highly confident but wrong: gender differences and similarities in confidence judgments. J Educ Psychol 1994; 86: 114– 121.

Authors
Catalina, Q. M., Fuster-Casanovas, A., Vidal-Alaball, J., Escalé-Besa, A., Marin-Gomez, F. X., Femenia, J., & Solé-Casals, J.
Affiliations
  • Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (ES)
  • Unitat de Suport a la Recerca de la Catalunya Central, Fundació Institut Universitari per a la Recerca a l'Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina, Sant Fruitós de Bages, Spain
  • Universitat de Vic - Universitat Central de Catalunya (ES)
  • Data and Signal Processing group, Faculty of Science, Technology and Engineering, University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, Vic, Spain
ORCID
Venue
DIGITAL HEALTH
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2023-01
Volume
9
Pages
20552076231180511-20552076231180511
ISSN
2055-2076 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/20552076231180511
PMC
PMC10286543
OpenAlex
W4380682381
Cited by
71
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 7
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • 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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
Keywords
artificial intelligence in healthcare, primary care providers, healthcare professionals' perceptions, AI readiness, doctors and nurses

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