Background: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is rapidly permeating healthcare; yet, U.S. clinicians still report mixed feelings about its reliability, impact on workflow, and ethical implications. Current data on provider sentiment are needed to guide safe, patient-centered AI implementation in healthcare. Objective: This study aimed to assess U.S. healthcare providers’ perceptions of generative AI adoption, perceived usefulness, training needs, barriers, and strategies for safe integration. Methods: A nationwide, IRB-approved, cross-sectional survey was administered to healthcare professionals using Qualtrics. A convenience sample of clinicians was recruited via professional listservs and e-mail invitations. The 20-page questionnaire captured demographics, GenAI exposure, organizational adoption status, perceived usefulness (5-point scale), barriers, and mitigation strategies. SPSS v27 and Microsoft Excel were used for statistical analysis. Results: Of 130 respondents, 109 completed the core survey (completion rate 83.8%). Participants were 38.5% physicians, 16.5% nurses, 12.8% allied professionals, and 32.2% other providers; 54.2% were women, and 64.8% were ≥50 years. Overall, 86.9% agreed that GenAI is useful in current patient care, rising to 92.9% when asked about future usefulness. Only 42.4% had received formal GenAI training, and just 23.2% reported that their organization had begun adopting AI. The top perceived benefits were improved documentation/clerking (57.0%) and error reduction (49.4%). Dominant barriers included limited AI knowledge (24.7%) and fear of job loss (16.9%). Despite concerns, 72% expressed willingness to support broader GenAI adoption, favoring human oversight (67.1%) and staff training (60.8%) as key safeguards. There were statistically significant findings in perceived AI usefulness by gender (χ2 = 29.2; p < 0.001); organizational adoption of AI (χ2 = 31.6.2; p = 0.047) and where AI is most useful (χ2 = 101.1; p < 0.001) by qualifications; and support for AI adoption by age (χ2 = 18.0; p = 0.02). Conclusions: U.S. clinicians in our survey viewed GenAI as useful but reported limited training and organizational infrastructure needed for confident use while also expressing concerns regarding data privacy and ethical risk. Education programs and transparent, provider-led implementation strategies may accelerate responsible GenAI assimilation while addressing ethical and workforce concerns. Also, health administrators should use the efficiency gains to improve provider–patient relationships and clinicians’ work–life balance while reducing clinician burnout rates.
Oleribe et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: