Sevil Uygun Ilikhan, Sinem Ülke, Mahmut Özer, Matjaž Perc, Yavuz Ayhan
{"title":"Optimistic and ambivalent attitudes toward clinical artificial intelligence.","authors":"Sevil Uygun Ilikhan, Sinem Ülke, Mahmut Özer, Matjaž Perc, Yavuz Ayhan","doi":"10.55730/1300-0144.6220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into healthcare systems; however, healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions regarding AI remain insufficiently understood. This study aimed to evaluate healthcare professionals' perceptions of AI in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This descriptive cross-sectional study included 260 healthcare professionals, including physicians, nurses, and healthcare technicians working at a tertiary public hospital in Türkiye. Participants completed the Healthcare Professionals and Artificial Intelligence Questionnaire, which assessed demographic characteristics, AI knowledge, workplace AI use, attitudes toward AI applications, ethical and legal concerns, perceived professional impact, and educational needs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most participants reported limited AI knowledge; 64.6% indicated basic knowledge, whereas 23.1% reported no knowledge. Only 24.6% reported using AI-based systems in clinical practice, while 35.4% were uncertain whether such systems were used in their workplaces. Despite limited experience, attitudes toward recent AI developments were generally positive. Most participants expressed willingness to receive AI-related education (76.9%), although only 6.2% had previously received formal training. Nearly half of the participants believed that the human factor would remain essential in healthcare, whereas a similar proportion considered partial replacement by AI possible. Physicians demonstrated greater confidence in AI usefulness and stronger willingness to integrate AI into clinical decision-making than nurses and other healthcare professionals. Nurses primarily emphasized data security and privacy concerns, whereas physicians highlighted patient safety and misdiagnosis risk. Exploratory psychometric analyses demonstrated a three-factor structure with acceptable sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.765).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Healthcare professionals generally perceive AI as a supportive tool rather than a replacement for human judgment. Limited AI literacy, uncertainty regarding legal responsibility, and insufficient training remain important barriers to responsible AI adoption. Profession-sensitive educational strategies and clearer governance frameworks may support safer AI integration into healthcare practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":23361,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":"56 3","pages":"860-871"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13398542/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0144.6220","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/aim: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into healthcare systems; however, healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions regarding AI remain insufficiently understood. This study aimed to evaluate healthcare professionals' perceptions of AI in clinical practice.
Materials and methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study included 260 healthcare professionals, including physicians, nurses, and healthcare technicians working at a tertiary public hospital in Türkiye. Participants completed the Healthcare Professionals and Artificial Intelligence Questionnaire, which assessed demographic characteristics, AI knowledge, workplace AI use, attitudes toward AI applications, ethical and legal concerns, perceived professional impact, and educational needs.
Results: Most participants reported limited AI knowledge; 64.6% indicated basic knowledge, whereas 23.1% reported no knowledge. Only 24.6% reported using AI-based systems in clinical practice, while 35.4% were uncertain whether such systems were used in their workplaces. Despite limited experience, attitudes toward recent AI developments were generally positive. Most participants expressed willingness to receive AI-related education (76.9%), although only 6.2% had previously received formal training. Nearly half of the participants believed that the human factor would remain essential in healthcare, whereas a similar proportion considered partial replacement by AI possible. Physicians demonstrated greater confidence in AI usefulness and stronger willingness to integrate AI into clinical decision-making than nurses and other healthcare professionals. Nurses primarily emphasized data security and privacy concerns, whereas physicians highlighted patient safety and misdiagnosis risk. Exploratory psychometric analyses demonstrated a three-factor structure with acceptable sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.765).
Conclusion: Healthcare professionals generally perceive AI as a supportive tool rather than a replacement for human judgment. Limited AI literacy, uncertainty regarding legal responsibility, and insufficient training remain important barriers to responsible AI adoption. Profession-sensitive educational strategies and clearer governance frameworks may support safer AI integration into healthcare practice.
期刊介绍:
Turkish Journal of Medical sciences is a peer-reviewed comprehensive resource that provides critical up-to-date information on the broad spectrum of general medical sciences. The Journal intended to publish original medical scientific papers regarding the priority based on the prominence, significance, and timeliness of the findings. However since the audience of the Journal is not limited to any subspeciality in a wide variety of medical disciplines, the papers focusing on the technical details of a given medical subspeciality may not be evaluated for publication.