Advance Search

Physicians' perceptions of artificial intelligence in clinical and academic practice: a mixed-methods study from Erbil City

Shaida Azad Kareem
Department of Community Medicine, College of Medicine, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
Sherzad Ali Ismael
Kurdistan Higher Council of Medical Specialties, Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
Keywords:
Copyright and Licensing:

Copyright (c) 2026 Shaida Azad Kareem, Sherzad Ali Ismael (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Share:
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Background and objective: Integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare and medical research represents significant potential; however, it also introduces practical and ethical challenges. This study analyzes physicians' perceptions of AI implementation in clinical and academic settings, exploring their awareness, perceptions, barriers, concerns, and insights into ethical and regulatory considerations.

Methods: A mixed-methods approach was used. The quantitative component involved standardized surveys completed by 390 physicians (241 clinical, 149 academic) in Erbil City from November 2024 to June 2025. Participants were selected using systematic sampling, and surveys were self-administered. The qualitative component included two focus group discussions, involving 6 clinical physicians and 8 academic physicians, to explore in-depth perceptions and concerns regarding AI in healthcare and research.

Results: Of 390 physicians, the majority of participants were male (69.2%). Mean age was 46.7±7 years. Familiarity with AI was higher among younger, male, and academic physicians, with age showing a negative association (p <0.001). Clinical physicians reported more concerns regarding privacy in healthcare (p=0.003) and research (p=0.041), as well as algorithmic bias (p=0.030). Despite these concerns, most physicians valued AI in healthcare and academic research and demonstrated strong interest in training and collaboration. Qualitative findings showed optimism and frequent use of AI tools such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek, often described as “Google replacements.” However, physicians also highlighted ethical issues and the need for local training and infrastructure improvement.

Conclusion: Physicians generally welcome the use of AI in healthcare and research but emphasize the necessity of ethical guidelines, peer collaboration, and formal education. To ensure responsible adoption, addressing infrastructural and trust barriers will be essential for guaranteeing that AI technologies improve rather than undermine patient care and research integrity.

PDF
PDF

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):44-56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7
  2. Jiang F, Jiang Y, Zhi H, Dong Y, Li H, Ma S, et al. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: past, present and future. Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2017;2(4):230-43. https://doi.org/10.1136/svn-2017-000101
  3. Castagno S, Khalifa M. Perceptions of artificial intelligence among healthcare staff: a qualitative survey study. Front Artif Intell. 2020;3:578983. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.578983
  4. Bi WL, Hosny A, Schabath MB, Giger ML, Birkbak NJ, Mehrtash A, et al. Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: clinical challenges and applications. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(2):127-57. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21552
  5. Shen J, Zhang CJP, Jiang B, Chen J, Song J, Liu Z, et al. Artificial intelligence versus clinicians in disease diagnosis: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform. 2019;7(3):e10010. https://doi.org/10.2196/10010
  6. Liu X, Faes L, Kale AU, Wagner SK, Fu DJ, Bruynseels A, et al. A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Digit Health. 2019;1(6):e271-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30123-2
  7. Rajkomar A, Dean J, Kohane I. Machine learning in medicine. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(14):1347-58. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1814259
  8. Vaishya R, Javaid M, Khan IH, Haleem A. Artificial intelligence (AI) applications for COVID-19 pandemic. Diabetes Metab Syndr Clin Res Rev. 2020;14(4):337-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.04.012
  9. Paranjape K, Schinkel M, Panday RN, Car J, Nanayakkara P. Introducing artificial intelligence training in medical education. JMIR Med Educ. 2019;5(2):e16048. https://doi.org/10.2196/16048
  10. Wagner G, Lukyanenko R, Paré G. Artificial intelligence and the conduct of literature reviews. J Inf Technol. 2022;37(2):209-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962211048201
  11. Stokel-Walker C, Noorden RV. What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature. 2023;614(7947):214-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00340-6
  12. Marcel F, Kang P. Examining AI guidelines in Canadian universities: implications on academic integrity in academic writing. Discourse Writ. 2024;34:93-126. https://doi.org/10.31468/dwr.1051
  13. Al-Medfa MK, Al-Ansari AMS, Darwish AH, Qreeballa TA, Jahrami H. Physicians' attitudes and knowledge toward artificial intelligence in medicine: benefits and drawbacks. Heliyon. 2023;9(4):e14744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14744
  14. Allen MR, Webb S, Mandvi A, Frieden M, Tai-Seale M, Kallenberg G. Navigating the doctor-patient-AI relationship — a mixed-methods study of physician attitudes toward artificial intelligence in primary care. BMC Prim Care. 2024;25(1):42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02282-y
  15. Tamori H, Yamashina H, Mukai M, Morii Y, Suzuki T, Ogasawara K. Acceptance of the use of artificial intelligence in medicine among Japan's doctors and the public: a questionnaire survey. JMIR Hum Factors. 2022;9(1):e24680. https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.24680
  16. Catalina QM, Fuster-Casanovas A, Vidal-Alaball J, Escalé-Besa A, Marin-Gomez FX, Femenia J, et al. Knowledge and perception of primary care healthcare professionals on the use of artificial intelligence as a healthcare tool. Digit Health. 2023;9:20552076231180511. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076231180511
  17. Bekbolatova M, Mayer J, Ong CW, Toma M. Transformative potential of AI in healthcare: definitions, applications, and navigating the ethical landscape and public perspectives. Healthcare. 2024;12(2):125. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12020125
  18. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  19. Pearson D. Global survey finds doctors, nurses all in with healthcare AI [Internet]. 2023. https://aiin.healthcare/topics/artificial-intelligence/global-survey-finds-doctors-nurses-all-healthcare-ai
  20. Li Z, Wang L, Wu X, Jiang J, Qiang W, Xie H, et al. Artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: the path to the real-world clinic. Cell Rep Med. 2023;4(7):101095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.101095
  21. Wang D, Zhang S. Large language models in medical and healthcare fields: applications, advances, and challenges. Artif Intell Rev. 2024;57(11):299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10921-0
  22. McDougall RJ. Computer knows best? The need for value-flexibility in medical AI. J Med Ethics. 2019;45(3):156-60. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105118
  23. Henzler D, Schmidt S, Koçar A, Herdegen S, Lindinger GL, Maris MT, et al. Healthcare professionals' perspectives on artificial intelligence in patient care: a systematic review of hindering and facilitating factors on different levels. BMC Health Serv Res. 2025;25(1):633. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12664-2
  24. Ashton JJ, Brooks-Warburton J, Allen PB, Tham TC, Hoque S, Kennedy NA, et al. The importance of high-quality 'big data' in the application of artificial intelligence in inflammatory bowel disease. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2023;14(3):258-62. https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2022-102342
  25. Shin J, Kim JY. Customized quality assessment of healthcare data. Ann Lab Med. 2024;44(6):472-7. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2024.0084
  26. Rajpurkar P, Chen E, Banerjee O, Topol EJ. AI in health and medicine. Nat Med. 2022;28(1):31-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01614-0
  27. World Health Organization. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. 1st ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.
  28. Chen M, Zhang B, Cai Z, Seery S, Gonzalez MJ, Ali NM, et al. Acceptance of clinical artificial intelligence among physicians and medical students: a systematic review with cross-sectional survey. Front Med. 2022;9:990604. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.990604
  29. Jackson P, Ponath Sukumaran G, Babu C, Tony MC, Jack DS, Reshma VR, et al. Artificial intelligence in medical education: perception among medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):804. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05760-0
  30. Radhwi OO, Khafaji MA. The wizard of artificial intelligence: are physicians prepared? J Fam Community Med. 2024;31(4):344. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.jfcm_144_24
  31. Hassan M, Kushniruk A, Borycki E. Barriers to and facilitators of artificial intelligence adoption in health care: scoping review. JMIR Hum Factors. 2024;11(1):e48633. https://doi.org/10.2196/48633
How to Cite
Azad Kareem, S. ., & Ali Ismael, S. . (2026). Physicians’ perceptions of artificial intelligence in clinical and academic practice: a mixed-methods study from Erbil City. Zanco Journal of Medical Sciences (ZJMS), 730–744. https://doi.org/10.15218/zjms.2026.052

Send mail to Author

Send Cancel