CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of healthcare students and professionals on the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare in Pakistan

Open access
Habib, Muhammad Mustafa, Hoodbhoy, Zahra, Siddiqui, M. A. Rehman·2024·PLOS Digital Health
DOI 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000443PMC PMC11086889
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has emerged as a promising solution to enhance healthcare efficiency and improve patient outcomes. The objective of this study is to analyse the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of healthcare professionals in Pakistan about AI in healthcare. We conducted a cross-sectional study using a questionnaire distributed via Google Forms. This was distributed to healthcare professionals (e.g., doctors, nurses, medical students, and allied healthcare workers) working or studying in Pakistan. Consent was taken from all participants before initiating the questionnaire. The questions were related to participant demographics, basic understanding of AI, AI in education and practice, AI applications in healthcare systems, AI’s impact on healthcare professions and the socio-ethical consequences of the use of AI. We analyzed the data using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) statistical software, version 26.0. Overall, 616 individuals responded to the survey while n = 610 (99.0%) of respondents consented to participate. The mean age of participants was 32.2 ± 12.5 years. Most of the participants (78.7%, n = 480) had never received any formal sessions or training in AI during their studies/employment. A majority of participants, 70.3% (n = 429), believed that AI would raise more ethical challenges in healthcare. In all, 66.4% (n = 405) of participants believed that AI should be taught at the undergraduate level. The survey suggests that there is insufficient training about AI in healthcare in Pakistan despite the interest of many in this area. Future work in developing a tailored curriculum regarding AI in healthcare will help bridge the gap between the interest in use of AI and training.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000443

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The mechanism is consistent with arguments that AI can facilitate convenience and performance while simultaneously undermining independent thought if not accompanied by reflective safeguards.

    “Such a mechanism is consistent with arguments that AI can facilitate convenience and performance while simultaneously undermining independent thought if not accompanied by reflective safeguards [27, 30, 41].”

    From From adoption to interaction: examining human-GenAI engagement patterns, ethical tensions, and educational trade-offs in nursing education (2026) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Introduction describes AI’s potential to improve diagnostic accuracy, and the Discussion describes advantages such as optimizing patient workflows. The Discussion also calls for ethical guidelines, but the paper does not address AI undermining independent thought or propose reflective safeguards against that risk. The indexed copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Habib, M. M., Hoodbhoy, Z., & Siddiqui, M. A. R.
Affiliations
  • Aga Khan University (PK)
  • Aga Khan University Hospital (PK)
Corresponding author
Siddiqui, M. A. Rehman
ORCID
Venue
PLOS Digital Health
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2024-05-10
Volume
3
Issue
5
Pages
e0000443
ISSN
2767-3170 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pdig.0000443
PMC
PMC11086889
OpenAlex
W4396790012
Cited by
41
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 4
FWCI
3.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLOS Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
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, healthcare professionals' knowledge and attitudes, AI training needs, ethics of AI in healthcare, medical students, nurses, Pakistan

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