Health Care Employees’ Perceptions of the Use of Artificial Intelligence Applications: Survey Study
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Background: The advancement of health care information technology and the emergence of artificial intelligence has yielded tools to improve the quality of various health care processes. Few studies have investigated employee perceptions of artificial intelligence implementation in Saudi Arabia and the Arabian world. In addition, limited studies investigated the effect of employee knowledge and job title on the perception of artificial intelligence implementation in the workplace. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore health care employee perceptions and attitudes toward the implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in health care institutions in Saudi Arabia. Methods: An online questionnaire was published, and responses were collected from 250 employees, including doctors, nurses, and technicians at 4 of the largest hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Results: The results of this study showed that 3.11 of 4 respondents feared artificial intelligence would replace employees and had a general lack of knowledge regarding artificial intelligence. In addition, most respondents were unaware of the advantages and most common challenges to artificial intelligence applications in the health sector, indicating a need for training. The results also showed that technicians were the most frequently impacted by artificial intelligence applications due to the nature of their jobs, which do not require much direct human interaction. Conclusions: The Saudi health care sector presents an advantageous market potential that should be attractive to researchers and developers of artificial intelligence solutions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Professionals believe that AI would increase their efficiency in managing medical information and knowledge, by being granted quick access to vast amounts of knowledge with the ability to scan and summarize relevant information effectively, or being able to handle big-data records in real-time.
“Furthermore, the professionals believe that AI would increase their efficiency in managing medical information and knowledge, by being granted quick access to vast amounts of knowledge with the ability to scan and summarize relevant information effectively with the help of AI [29, 30, 46–49] or being able to handle big-data records in real-time [50, 51].”
From Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on artificial intelligence in patient care: a systematic review of hindering and facilitating factors on different levels (2025) · cites this paper as [48]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIntegrating AI is hindered by fears, missing sensitization, and a lack of data.
“Integrating AI is hindered by fears, missing sensitization, and a lack of data [8, 22, 23, 25, 27, 30].”
From Nurses’ perceptions, experience and knowledge regarding artificial intelligence: results from a cross-sectional online survey in Germany (2024) · cites this paper as [30]
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 23 · Cited by 286
- Authors
- Abdullah, R., & Fakieh, B.
- Affiliations
- King Abdulaziz University (SA)
- Corresponding author
- Fakieh, Bahjat
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2020-05-14
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e17620
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7256754
- OpenAlex
- W3012391191
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 49 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 6.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- 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, healthcare workers, employee perceptions, attitudes toward AI, job displacement fears, AI knowledge, health information technology, hospital staff
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Workplace, Young Adult
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