Perceptions on artificial intelligence among anaesthesia and intensive care professionals: An international survey on attitudes, expectations and needs.
Raphael Theilen, Tim Kramer, Martin Scharffenberg, Ian-Christopher Jung, Maria Zerlik, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Saman Sepehr, Thea Koch, Brita Sedlmayr, Robert Huhle, Jakob Wittenstein
{"title":"Perceptions on artificial intelligence among anaesthesia and intensive care professionals: An international survey on attitudes, expectations and needs.","authors":"Raphael Theilen, Tim Kramer, Martin Scharffenberg, Ian-Christopher Jung, Maria Zerlik, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Saman Sepehr, Thea Koch, Brita Sedlmayr, Robert Huhle, Jakob Wittenstein","doi":"10.1007/s10877-026-01464-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Artificial intelligence (AI) can enhance diagnostics, treatment, and workflow efficiency. However, successful integration into clinical practice depends on users' acceptance. Objective To investigate benefits, barriers, and challenges of AI applications among anaesthesia and intensive care professionals. Design International online survey. Main outcome measures The survey included items on familiarity and experiences with AI applications, perceived benefits, concerns, and demographic variables. Descriptive analyses, fisher exact tests, χ²-tests, odds ratios, and Spearman rank correlations were used to explore associations between responses and demographics. Results The survey was distributed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in 2023. A total of 510 respondents completed the entire survey, primarily from Europe (78%) and Asia (14.5%), and the majority were board-certified anaesthesiologists (86.3%). 86.5% of the respondents were aware of AI applications, but only 36.8% reported regular encounters. Familiarity was higher among males and intensive care specialists. 94.5% expressed interest in AI training, particularly younger and less experienced professionals. 94.7% expressed willingness to use AI applications, citing benefits such as improved decision-making (92.7%), complication anticipation (88.6%), and workload reduction (80.1%). Younger and female respondents were more optimistic about AI's benefits. Key concerns included lack of explainability (68.4%), over-reliance on AI (80.8%), and medico-legal uncertainties (58.4%). Scepticism was attributed to insufficient validation studies and fears of inaccurate outputs, particularly among experienced clinicians. Conclusions This international survey shows cautious optimism among anaesthesia and intensive care professionals regarding AI applications. Adoption in clinical practice requires tailored training that accounts also for demographic-specific concerns, robust validation, and clear ethical and legal frameworks.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":"1189-1197"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13562144/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-026-01464-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background Artificial intelligence (AI) can enhance diagnostics, treatment, and workflow efficiency. However, successful integration into clinical practice depends on users' acceptance. Objective To investigate benefits, barriers, and challenges of AI applications among anaesthesia and intensive care professionals. Design International online survey. Main outcome measures The survey included items on familiarity and experiences with AI applications, perceived benefits, concerns, and demographic variables. Descriptive analyses, fisher exact tests, χ²-tests, odds ratios, and Spearman rank correlations were used to explore associations between responses and demographics. Results The survey was distributed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in 2023. A total of 510 respondents completed the entire survey, primarily from Europe (78%) and Asia (14.5%), and the majority were board-certified anaesthesiologists (86.3%). 86.5% of the respondents were aware of AI applications, but only 36.8% reported regular encounters. Familiarity was higher among males and intensive care specialists. 94.5% expressed interest in AI training, particularly younger and less experienced professionals. 94.7% expressed willingness to use AI applications, citing benefits such as improved decision-making (92.7%), complication anticipation (88.6%), and workload reduction (80.1%). Younger and female respondents were more optimistic about AI's benefits. Key concerns included lack of explainability (68.4%), over-reliance on AI (80.8%), and medico-legal uncertainties (58.4%). Scepticism was attributed to insufficient validation studies and fears of inaccurate outputs, particularly among experienced clinicians. Conclusions This international survey shows cautious optimism among anaesthesia and intensive care professionals regarding AI applications. Adoption in clinical practice requires tailored training that accounts also for demographic-specific concerns, robust validation, and clear ethical and legal frameworks.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine.
The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group.
The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.