From awareness to action: A nationwide survey of infectious diseases and clinical microbiology physicians’ perspectives on artificial intelligence in clinical practice

GÜLTEN E., Derin O., Arslan E., Atasoy Tahtasakal C., Temoçin F., MEMİŞOĞLU F., ...Daha Fazla

Digital Health, cilt.11, 2025 (SCI-Expanded, SSCI, Scopus) identifier identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 11
  • Basım Tarihi: 2025
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1177/20552076251404507
  • Dergi Adı: Digital Health
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Artificial intelligence, clinical microbiology, digital health, infectious diseases, physician attitudes
  • Ankara Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical practice is gaining momentum globally, yet specialty-specific perspectives remain underexplored. This study aimed to assess the awareness, knowledge, attitudes, expectations, and concerns of infectious diseases and clinical microbiology (IDCM) physicians regarding AI applications in their field. Methods: A cross-sectional, online survey was distributed between May and June 2025 to IDCM physicians across Türkiye. The questionnaire included multiple-choice, Likert-type, and open-ended items assessing sociodemographic characteristics, AI familiarity, clinical use, and perceptions. Descriptive and inferential statistics, along with thematic analysis of qualitative responses, were employed. Results: In total, 387 IDCM physicians completed the survey. While 0.5% (n = 2) reported prior long-term/extensive AI training, 88.9% (n = 344) agreed that IDCM physicians should be actively involved in AI system development. Notably, 23.0% (n = 89) had already used AI tools, primarily ChatGPT (n = 69, 77.5%). Regarding accountability, 68.2% (n = 264) assigned responsibility for erroneous AI-generated decisions to physicians. Familiarity with AI showed a strong association with academic title (p < .001). Total knowledge scores were significantly higher among university hospital physicians (p < .001), whereas total attitude scores differed across age (p = .003), academic title (p = .001), and years of experience (p = .006). Thematic analysis of 97 open-ended responses revealed high expectations for AI in enhancing decision support, timeliness, and operational efficiency. However, major concerns included ethical risks, algorithmic bias, data reliability, and potential erosion of clinical autonomy. Conclusions: This study provides comprehensive insights into IDCM physicians’ perspectives on AI. Findings highlight strong interest but limited preparedness, underscoring the need for targeted education, ethical safeguards, and inclusive policy frameworks to ensure responsible AI integration.