Scholarlink

<p><i>Background</i> Artificial intelligence (AI) can enhance diagnostics, treatment, and workflow efficiency. However, successful integration into clinical practice depends on users’ acceptance. <i>Objective</i> To investigate benefits, barriers, and challenges of AI applications among anaesthesia and intensive care professionals. <i>Design</i> International online survey. <i>Main outcome measures</i> 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. <i>Results</i> 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. <i>Conclusions</i> 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>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Perceptions on artificial intelligence among anaesthesia and intensive care professionals: An international survey on attitudes, expectations and needs

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月4日

查看全文
  • 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

摘要

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.