Peer perceptions of clinicians using generative AI in medical decision-making

Abstract

This study investigates how a physician's use of generative AI (GenAI) in medical decision‑making is perceived by peer clinicians. In a randomized experiment, 276 practicing clinicians evaluated one of three vignettes depicting a physician: (1) using no GenAI (Control), (2) using GenAI as a primary decision-making tool (GenAI-primary), and (3) using GenAI as a verification tool (GenAI-verify). Participants rated the physician depicted in the GenAI‑primary condition significantly lower in clinical skill (on a 1-7 scale; mean = 3.79) than in the Control condition (5.93, p < 0.001). Framing GenAI use as verification partially mitigated this effect (4.99, p < 0.001). Similar patterns appeared for perceived overall healthcare experience and competence. Participants also acknowledged GenAI's value in improving accuracy (4.30, p < 0.002) and rated institutionally customized GenAI more favorably (4.96, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that while clinicians see GenAI as helpful, its use can negatively impact peer evaluations. These effects can be reduced, but not fully eliminated, by framing it as a verification aid.

Ähnliche Arbeiten