How do GPs Want Large Language Models to be Applied in Primary Care, and What Are Their Concerns? A Cross-Sectional Survey

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Richard C. Armitage
{"title":"How do GPs Want Large Language Models to be Applied in Primary Care, and What Are Their Concerns? A Cross-Sectional Survey","authors":"Richard C. Armitage","doi":"10.1111/jep.70129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Although the potential utility of large language models (LLMs) in medicine and healthcare is substantial, no assessment has been made to date of how GPs want LLMs to be applied in primary care, or of which issues GPs are most concerned about regarding the implementation of LLMs into their clinical practice. This study's objective was to generate preliminary evidence that answers these questions, which are relevant because GPs themselves will ultimately harness the power of LLMs in primary care.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Non-probability sampling was utilised: GPs practicing in the UK and who were members of one of two Facebook groups (one containing a community of UK primary care staff, the other containing a community of GMC-registered doctors in the UK) were invited to complete an online survey, which ran from 06 to 13 November 2024.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The survey received 113 responses, 107 of which were from GPs practicing in the UK. When LLM accuracy and safety were assumed to be guaranteed, broad enthusiasm for LLMs carrying out various nonclinical and clinical tasks in primary care was reported. The single nonclinical task and clinical task that respondents were most supportive of were the LLM listening to the consultation and writing notes in real-time for the GP to review, edit, and save (44.0%), and the LLM identifying outstanding clinical tasks and actioning them (51.0%), respectively. Respondents were concerned with a range of issues regarding LLMs being embedded into clinical systems, with patient safety being the most commonly reported single issue of concern (36.2%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>This study has generated preliminary evidence that is of potential utility to those developing LLMs for use in primary care. Further research is required to expand this evidence base to further inform the development of these technologies, and to ensure they are acceptable to the GPs who will use them.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70129","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70129","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Although the potential utility of large language models (LLMs) in medicine and healthcare is substantial, no assessment has been made to date of how GPs want LLMs to be applied in primary care, or of which issues GPs are most concerned about regarding the implementation of LLMs into their clinical practice. This study's objective was to generate preliminary evidence that answers these questions, which are relevant because GPs themselves will ultimately harness the power of LLMs in primary care.

Methods

Non-probability sampling was utilised: GPs practicing in the UK and who were members of one of two Facebook groups (one containing a community of UK primary care staff, the other containing a community of GMC-registered doctors in the UK) were invited to complete an online survey, which ran from 06 to 13 November 2024.

Results

The survey received 113 responses, 107 of which were from GPs practicing in the UK. When LLM accuracy and safety were assumed to be guaranteed, broad enthusiasm for LLMs carrying out various nonclinical and clinical tasks in primary care was reported. The single nonclinical task and clinical task that respondents were most supportive of were the LLM listening to the consultation and writing notes in real-time for the GP to review, edit, and save (44.0%), and the LLM identifying outstanding clinical tasks and actioning them (51.0%), respectively. Respondents were concerned with a range of issues regarding LLMs being embedded into clinical systems, with patient safety being the most commonly reported single issue of concern (36.2%).

Discussion

This study has generated preliminary evidence that is of potential utility to those developing LLMs for use in primary care. Further research is required to expand this evidence base to further inform the development of these technologies, and to ensure they are acceptable to the GPs who will use them.

全科医生如何希望大型语言模型应用于初级保健,他们的关注点是什么?横断面调查
尽管大型语言模型(llm)在医学和医疗保健中的潜在效用是巨大的,但迄今为止还没有评估全科医生希望llm如何应用于初级保健,或者全科医生在临床实践中实施llm时最关心的问题是什么。这项研究的目的是产生回答这些问题的初步证据,这些问题是相关的,因为全科医生自己最终将在初级保健中利用法学硕士的力量。方法采用非概率抽样:邀请在英国执业的全科医生完成一项在线调查,他们是两个Facebook小组之一的成员(一个包含英国初级保健人员社区,另一个包含英国gmc注册医生社区),调查时间为2024年11月6日至13日。结果本次调查共收到113份回复,其中107份来自英国执业的全科医生。当LLM的准确性和安全性得到保证时,人们对LLM在初级保健中执行各种非临床和临床任务的广泛热情被报道。受访者最支持的单一非临床任务和临床任务分别是LLM听取会诊并实时撰写笔记供全科医生审查、编辑和保存(44.0%),以及LLM识别突出的临床任务并采取行动(51.0%)。受访者对法学硕士嵌入临床系统的一系列问题表示关注,患者安全是最常见的单一问题(36.2%)。本研究产生了初步的证据,对那些开发llm用于初级保健的人有潜在的效用。需要进一步的研究来扩大这一证据基础,以进一步为这些技术的发展提供信息,并确保它们为使用它们的全科医生所接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信