Cross-sectional analysis reveals varied knowledge and attitudes towards AI tools among physicians in Bangladesh, indicating potential for improvement.
Background: AI tools are transforming diagnosis, treatment planning, and patient care in healthcare. However, adoption in resource-limited settings like Bangladesh remains slow. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of registered physicians in Bangladesh regarding AI tools in medical practice, contributing to a growing but underexplored body of literature on digital health readiness in Bangladesh. Design and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted over 6 months (September 2023 to February 2024), involving 398 doctors with MBBS or BDS degrees across Bangladesh. Participants were selected using a convenience sampling method. Data were collected through paper surveys, assessing knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Cronbach’s alpha for each section was above 0.70, with an overall model consistency of 0.79, indicating very good reliability. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 17. Results: Among the study participants, 78.39% had poor knowledge. Attitudes were almost evenly split, with 48.74% having a negative attitude and 51.26% having a positive attitude. In terms of practice, 65.58% exhibited poor practice. In multivariate analysis, female physicians had a significantly higher likelihood of having good knowledge (AOR = 3.56, CI: 2.11–6.03, p < 0.001) and good practice (AOR = 2.89, CI: 1.73–4.83, p < 0.001) compared to male physicians. Conclusion: While awareness of AI tools is high among Bangladeshi physicians, actual integration into practice remains limited. The cautiously positive attitudes—especially toward AI’s educational and diagnostic potential—indicate an opportunity for targeted training and user-centered AI tool development. Strengthening AI literacy and addressing concerns such as job displacement could enhance future adoption and optimize healthcare delivery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nishan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: