Danish cardiologists' attitude towards clinical AI support: a survey study

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: AI represents a conceptual change in medicine, and AI-based tools are rapidly being developed and implemented in clinical medicine. This study aimed to evaluate how clinicians at selected Danish cardiology departments perceive the role of AI in clinical decision-making. METHODS: We conducted a ten-item anonymous survey among clinicians in Danish cardiology departments to evaluate physicians' attitudes towards AI support in clinical decision-making for ischaemic heart disease. Key focus areas included perceived impact on patient outcomes, safety, workflow and clinician training. Responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with 4 or 5 collectively categorised as agreement. Participants were stratified by seniority (less-than 10 years versus ≥ 10 years). RESULTS: A total of 60 Danish clinicians at cardiology departments participated. The highest level of agreement was observed for AI optimism/expectations (68%, mean: 3.7), willingness to invest time in training (65%, mean: 3.8) and interest in AI use (63%, mean: 3.6). Although nosignificant, junior clinicians showed greater enthusiasm for training and adoption, whereas concerns about trust, safety and time-saving potential persisted across seniority. CONCLUSIONS: Danish cardiologists generally expressed moderate to high expectations, interest and willingness towards AI support in clinical decision-making. However, the study revealed concerns about accuracy, patient safety and whether AI will ultimately save clinicians' time. FUNDING: This project was supported by NordForsk (PM-Heart grant number 90580), Novo Nordisk Foundation (grant no. NNF14CC0001, NNF17OC0027594 and NNF22OC0079382), Innovation Fund Denmark (BigTempHealth grant no. 5153-00002B, case no. 8114-00033B and 8114-00034B), Rigshospitalets Forskningspulje and Rigshospitalets Forskningspulje Rammebevilling (#A11336). The funders had no role in the design or interpretation of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not relevant.

Ähnliche Arbeiten