Search

Background: Placebo use is widespread in clinical practice. However, they are most often administered deceptively rather than openly. It is often suggested that open‐label placebos (OLP) are less effective than deceptive placebos (DP). This study aimed to compare the use of DP and OLP treatments to reduce pain in healthy volunteers. Methods: We conducted a non‐inferiority, parallel, randomized, controlled trial, which also included a nested cross‐over no‐treatment condition. This study was conducted at a university clinic in France. Results: We included 60 subjects and the main result shows that the OLP was not inferior to the DP by a margin of 10 mm. The mean difference between both groups regarding intensity of pain was 0.7 mm with a 95% compatibility interval (95% CI) of ]−∞; 5.4], and 97.5% CI of ]−∞; 6.3]. Secondary outcomes require cautious interpretation of the effect of placebo versus no treatment due to a time–treatment interaction. Conclusion: The study indicates that OLP may perform just as well as DP and could provide support for the use of OLP as an ethical alternative to DP when they are to be used in a clinical setting. If only patients knew about the placebo nature of some treatments they are receiving, unnecessary lies could be avoided while maintaining similar placebo effects. Significance: This study is the first to show non‐inferiority of placebos administered honestly, also called OLP, compared to DP in reducing pain. This suggests that OLP could be as effective as their deceptive counterparts while having the ethical advantage of not being required to lie. If deception is not a necessary condition for efficacy, OLP should be preferred over DP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the importance of philosophical conversations in cognitive science of religion. Topics discussed include role for philosophy within cognitive science of religion; believe of author Robert McCauley that bifurcation ignores historically informed models of intra- and inter-level theory change in science; and expressing religious beliefs as inner representations to explain religious behavior.

Purpose: Ensuring security of online health records and patients' perceptions of security are concerns in adolescent healthcare. Little is known about adolescents' perceptions about healthcare's ability to protect online health records. This article explores adolescents' perspectives on security and privacy of their online health records, potential differences based on gender and health, attitudes to sharing information, and perceptions of what constitutes sensitive information., Methods: This study included a subset of items from a national online patient survey conducted in Sweden (January-February 2022), focusing on respondents aged 15-19 years. Gender and health status differences were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis test., Results: Of 218 adolescent respondents (77.1% female), a minority had security and privacy concerns. A notable proportion (41.3%) wished to control who could see their records, and those who reported better perceived health were more likely to want to manage access to their electronic health record (H = 13.569, p = .009). Most had not experienced unauthorized access to their records (75.2%) and had never shared health information on other online applications (85.8%). More than half (56.0%) perceived some information as sensitive, where mental health was the most common (76.0%). Most felt that reading their notes improved their trust for their healthcare professional (65.6%) and supported better communication with healthcare professionals (66.5%)., Discussion: In this national survey, adolescents generally reported few concerns about patient portals. Findings emphasize the need for security and privacy protection and to empower adolescents with greater control over access to their health information housed in electronic health record systems., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Worldwide, patients are increasingly being offered access to their full online clinical records including the narrative reports written by clinicians (so-called "open notes"). Against these developments, there is growing interest in the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) such as OpenAI's ChatGPT to co-assist clinicians with patient-facing documentation., Objective: This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of OpenAI's ChatGPT 3.5 and GPT 4.0 in generating three patient-facing clinical notes from fictional general practice narrative reports., Methods: On 1 October 2023 and 1 November 2023, we used ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 to generate notes for three validated fictional general practice notes, using a prompt in the style of a British primary care note for three commonly presented conditions: (1) type 2 diabetes, (2) major depressive disorder, and (3) a differential diagnosis for suspected bowel cancer. Outputs were analyzed for reading ease, sentiment analysis, empathy, and medical fidelity., Results: ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 wrote longer notes than the original, and embedded more second person pronouns, with ChatGPT 3.5 scoring higher on both. ChatGPT expanded abbreviations, but readability metrics showed that the notes required a higher reading proficiency, with ChatGPT 3.5 demanding the most advanced level. Across all notes, ChatGPT offered higher signatures of empathy across cognitive, compassion/sympathy, and prosocial cues. Medical fidelity ratings varied across all three cases with ChatGPT 4.0 rated superior., Conclusions: While ChatGPT improved sentiment and empathy metrics in the transformed notes, compared to the original they also required higher reading proficiency and omitted details impacting medical fidelity., Competing Interests: Data are available as appendices. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Objective: The current understanding of the breadth of individual differences in how eHealth technologies are perceived as useful for different purposes is incomprehensive. The aim/purpose of the study is to improve the understanding of diverse perceptions of the usefulness of technologies by exploring older adults' use of their patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs)., Methods: The study applies and extends Affordance Theory based on an empirical analysis of data from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey on attitudes toward PAEHR in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia. Responses from 3964 participants in Sweden, aged 65 + years were analysed. Data included demographics and agreement ratings to reasons for using PAEHR. To analyse variation in the reasons for using PAEHR, group comparisons were conducted based on gender (male/female), age group (65-74, 75-84 and 85+) and earlier encouragement to use PAEHR., Results: Overall, the findings suggest that PAEHRs have multiple parallel affordance trajectories and affordance potencies that actualise differently depending on needs. The top reasons, pointing to both orientational and goal-oriented affordances for using PAEHR, were improving understanding of health issues, getting an overview of medical history/treatment and ensuring understanding of what the doctor said. Men reported more often sharing information with relatives or friends as a reason to access PAEHR. Women were more inclined, albeit similarly to men less frequently, to read their PAEHR for detecting errors. Age had little influence on reasons for using PAEHR., Conclusions: The study applies and extends Affordance Theory in the context of older adults' PAEHR use based on findings from the largest national investigation of reasons for older users to access PAEHR in Sweden demonstrating the applicability of the theory in improving the understanding of the diversity of individual perceptions on eHealth technologies., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Background: In an increasing number of countries, patients are given online record access (ORA) to their clinical notes ("open notes"). In many places, psychotherapy notes are exempt, even if patients explicitly wish to read them. Previous research suggests that psychotherapists (PTs) have reservations that are not yet fully understood., Objective: To investigate the attitudes and perceived effects of open notes on psychotherapeutic care, patients, and individual psychotherapeutic practice in Germany., Methods: Psychological and medical therapists were invited to participate in a national online survey. Sociodemographic characteristics such as gender, age, professional group, and psychotherapeutic school were gathered. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the 51-item survey., Results: 129 PTs completed the survey. Only a small proportion of respondents (30 out of 129, 23.3%) suspected that open notes would improve the efficiency of psychotherapeutic care. On the one hand, participants assumed that patients gain more control over their treatment (59 out of 129, 45.7%) and are better able to remember therapy goals (55 out of 129, 42.6%), although this was considered unlikely to lead to greater engagement in the therapy process (94 out of 129, 72.9%). On the other hand, PTs expected patients to misunderstand their notes, feel offended (98 out of 129, 76.0%), and approach them with questions (107 out of 129, 82.9%) or requests for changes (94 out of 129, 72.9%). The respondents also anticipated being less honest when writing (95 out of 129, 73.6%) and reported they needed more time for documentation (99 out of 129, 76.7%). A meaningful use of open notes for working with relatives was envisaged (101 out of 129, 78.3%)., Conclusion: PTs in Germany tend to have a negative attitude towards patients' ORA on open notes. Further research on clinical efficacy and feasibility is necessary to demonstrate whether open notes add value in the context of psychotherapy., Competing Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Background: The NORDeHEALTH project studies patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Such country comparisons require an analysis of the sociotechnical context of these services. Although sociotechnical analyses of PAEHR services have been carried out in the past, a framework specifically tailored to in-depth cross-country analysis has not been developed., Objective: This study aims to develop and evaluate a method for a sociotechnical analysis of PAEHRs that advances a framework for sociotechnical analysis of eHealth solutions first presented by Sittig and Singh. This first article in a series presents the development of the method and a cross-country comparison of the contextual factors that enable PAEHR access and use., Methods: The dimensions of the framework for sociotechnical analysis were thoroughly discussed and extended in a series of workshops with international stakeholders, all being eHealth researchers focusing on PAEHRs. All countries were represented in the working group to make sure that important national perspectives were covered. A spreadsheet with relevant questions related to the studied services and the various dimensions of the sociotechnical framework was constructed and distributed to the 4 participating countries, and the project participants researched various national sources to provide the relevant data for the comparisons in the 10 sociotechnical dimensions., Results: In total, 3 dimensions were added to the methodology of Sittig and Singh to separate clinical content from features and functions of PAEHRs and demonstrate basic characteristics of the different countries regarding national and regional steering of health care and information and communications technology developments. The final framework contained the following dimensions: metadata; hardware and software computing infrastructure; features and functions; clinical content shared with patients; human-computer interface; people; workflow and communication; the health care organization's internal policies, procedures, and culture; national rules, regulations, and incentives; system measurement and monitoring; and health care system context. The dimensions added during the study mostly concerned background information needed for cross-country comparisons in particular. Several similarities were identified among the compared countries, especially regarding hardware and software computing infrastructure. All countries had, for example, one national access point, and patients are provided a PAEHR automatically. Most of the differences could be identified in the health care system context dimension. One important difference concerned the governing of information and communications technology development, where different levels (state, region, and municipality) were responsible in different countries., Conclusions: This is the first large-scale international sociotechnical analysis of services for patients to access their electronic health records; this study compared services in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. A methodology for such an analysis was developed and is presented to enable comparison studies in other national contexts to enable future implementations and evaluations of PAEHRs., (©Jonas Moll, Isabella Scandurra, Annika Bärkås, Charlotte Blease, Maria Hägglund, Iiris Hörhammer, Bridget Kane, Eli Kristiansen, Peeter Ross, Rose-Mharie Åhlfeldt, Gunnar O Klein. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 26.08.2024.)

Randomised placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating novel treatments. However, this design is rarely used in the context of orthopaedic interventions where participants are assigned to a real or placebo surgery. The present study examines attitudes towards RPCTs for orthopaedic surgery among 687 orthopaedic surgeons across the USA. When presented with a vignette describing an RPCT for orthopaedic surgery, 52.3% of participants viewed it as 'completely' or 'mostly' unethical. Participants were also asked to rank-order the value of five different types of evidence supporting the efficacy of a surgery, ranging from RPCT to an anecdotal report. Responses regarding RPCTs were polarised with 26.4% viewing it as the least valuable (even less valuable than an anecdote) and 35.7 .% viewing it as the most valuable. Where equipoise exists, if we want to subject orthopaedic surgeries to the highest standard of evidence (RPCTs) before they are implemented in clinical practice, it will be necessary to educate physicians on the value and ethics of placebo surgery control conditions. Otherwise, invasive procedures may be performed without any benefits beyond possible placebo effects., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JS is a Partner Investigator on an Australian Research Council grant LP190100841 which involves industry partnership from Illumina. He does not personally receive any funds from Illumina. JS is a Bioethics Committee consultant for Bayer., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

People with disabilities are subject to multiple forms of health-related and wider social disparities; carefully focused research is required to inform more inclusive, safe and effective healthcare practice and policy. Through lived experience, disabled people are well positioned to identify and persistently pursue problems and opportunities within existing health provisions that may be overlooked by a largely non-disabled research community. Thus, the academy can play an important role in shining a light on the perspectives and insights from within the disability community, and combined with policy decisions, these perspectives and insights have a better opportunity to become integrated into the fabric of public life, within healthcare and beyond. However, despite the potential benefits that could be yielded by greater inclusivity, in this paper we describe barriers within the UK academy confronting disabled people who wish to embark on health research. We do this by drawing on published findings, and via the lived experience of the first author, who has struggled for over 3 years to find an accessible PhD programme as a person with energy limiting conditions who is largely confined to the home in the UK. First, we situate the discussion in the wider perspective of epistemic injustice in health research. Second, we consider evidence of epistemic injustice among disabled researchers, focusing primarily on what philosophers Kidd and Carel (2017, p 184) describe as 'strategies of exclusion'. Third, we offer recommendations for overcoming these barriers to improve the pipeline of researchers with disabilities in the academy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patients' online record access (ORA) enables patients to read and use their health data through online digital solutions. One such solution, patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) have been implemented in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. While accumulated research has pointed to many potential benefits of ORA, its application in mental healthcare (MHC) continues to be contested. The present study aimed to describe MHC users' overall experiences with national PAEHR services., Methods: The study analysed the MHC-part of the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey, a large-scale multi-country survey. The survey consisted of 45 questions, including demographic variables and questions related to users' experiences with ORA. We focused on the questions concerning positive experiences (benefits), negative experiences (errors, omissions, offence), and breaches of security and privacy. Participants were included in this analysis if they reported receiving mental healthcare within the past two years. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise data, and percentages were calculated on available data., Results: 6,157 respondents were included. In line with previous research, almost half (45%) reported very positive experiences with ORA. A majority in each country also reported improved trust (at least 69%) and communication (at least 71%) with healthcare providers. One-third (29.5%) reported very negative experiences with ORA. In total, half of the respondents (47.9%) found errors and a third (35.5%) found omissions in their medical documentation. One-third (34.8%) of all respondents also reported being offended by the content. When errors or omissions were identified, about half (46.5%) reported that they took no action. There seems to be differences in how patients experience errors, omissions, and missing information between the countries. A small proportion reported instances where family or others demanded access to their records (3.1%), and about one in ten (10.7%) noted that unauthorised individuals had seen their health information., Conclusions: Overall, MHC patients reported more positive experiences than negative, but a large portion of respondents reported problems with the content of the PAEHR. Further research on best practice in implementation of ORA in MHC is therefore needed, to ensure that all patients may reap the benefits while limiting potential negative consequences., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The Nordic countries are, together with the United States, forerunners in online record access (ORA), which has now become widespread. The importance of accessible and structured health data has also been highlighted by policy makers internationally. To ensure the full realization of ORA's potential in the short and long term, there is a pressing need to study ORA from a cross-disciplinary, clinical, humanistic, and social sciences perspective that looks beyond strictly technical aspects. In this viewpoint paper, we explore the policy changes in the European Health Data Space (EHDS) proposal to advance ORA across the European Union, informed by our research in a Nordic-led project that carries out the first of its kind, large-scale international investigation of patients' ORA-NORDeHEALTH (Nordic eHealth for Patients: Benchmarking and Developing for the Future). We argue that the EHDS proposal will pave the way for patients to access and control third-party access to their electronic health records. In our analysis of the proposal, we have identified five key principles for ORA: (1) the right to access, (2) proxy access, (3) patient input of their own data, (4) error and omission rectification, and (5) access control. ORA implementation today is fragmented throughout Europe, and the EHDS proposal aims to ensure all European citizens have equal online access to their health data. However, we argue that in order to implement the EHDS, we need more research evidence on the key ORA principles we have identified in our analysis. Results from the NORDeHEALTH project provide some of that evidence, but we have also identified important knowledge gaps that still need further exploration., (©Maria Hägglund, Anna Kharko, Annika Bärkås, Charlotte Blease, Åsa Cajander, Catherine DesRoches, Asbjørn Johansen Fagerlund, Josefin Hagström, Isto Huvila, Iiris Hörhammer, Bridget Kane, Gunnar O Klein, Eli Kristiansen, Jonas Moll, Irene Muli, Hanife Rexhepi, Sara Riggare, Peeter Ross, Isabella Scandurra, Saija Simola, Hedvig Soone, Bo Wang, Maedeh Ghorbanian Zolbin, Rose-Mharie Åhlfeldt, Sari Kujala, Monika Alise Johansen. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 27.06.2024.)

Background: Digital approaches may be helpful in augmenting care to address unmet mental health needs, particularly for schizophrenia and severe mental illness (SMI)., Objective: An international multidisciplinary group was convened to reach a consensus on the challenges and potential solutions regarding collecting data, delivering treatment, and the ethical challenges in digital mental health approaches for schizophrenia and SMI., Methods: The consensus development panel method was used, with an in-person meeting of 2 groups: the expert group and the panel. Membership was multidisciplinary including those with lived experience, with equal participation at all stages and coproduction of the consensus outputs and summary. Relevant literature was shared in advance of the meeting, and a systematic search of the recent literature on digital mental health interventions for schizophrenia and psychosis was completed to ensure that the panel was informed before the meeting with the expert group., Results: Four broad areas of challenge and proposed solutions were identified: (1) user involvement for real coproduction; (2) new approaches to methodology in digital mental health, including agreed standards, data sharing, measuring harms, prevention strategies, and mechanistic research; (3) regulation and funding issues; and (4) implementation in real-world settings (including multidisciplinary collaboration, training, augmenting existing service provision, and social and population-focused approaches). Examples are provided with more detail on human-centered research design, lived experience perspectives, and biomedical ethics in digital mental health approaches for SMI., Conclusions: The group agreed by consensus on a number of recommendations: (1) a new and improved approach to digital mental health research (with agreed reporting standards, data sharing, and shared protocols), (2) equal emphasis on social and population research as well as biological and psychological approaches, (3) meaningful collaborations across varied disciplines that have previously not worked closely together, (4) increased focus on the business model and product with planning and new funding structures across the whole development pathway, (5) increased focus and reporting on ethical issues and potential harms, and (6) organizational changes to allow for true communication and coproduction with those with lived experience of SMI. This study approach, combining an international expert meeting with patient and public involvement and engagement throughout the process, consensus methodology, discussion, and publication, is a helpful way to identify directions for future research and clinical implementation in rapidly evolving areas and can be combined with measurements of real-world clinical impact over time. Similar initiatives will be helpful in other areas of digital mental health and similarly fast-evolving fields to focus research and organizational change and effect improved real-world clinical implementation., (©Katharine A Smith, Amy Hardy, Anastasia Vinnikova, Charlotte Blease, Lea Milligan, Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei, Sinéad Lambe, Lisa Marzano, Peter J Uhlhaas, Edoardo G Ostinelli, Gerard Anmella, Caroline Zangani, Rosario Aronica, Bridget Dwyer, John Torous, Andrea Cipriani. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (https://mental.jmir.org), 08.05.2024.)

Research indicates that patients consider empathy as a key factor contributing to the quality-of-care. However, ambiguities in the definition of this multidimensional construct complicate definite conclusions to-date. Addressing the challenges in the literature, and using a hypothetical physician-patient interaction which explored patient-perceived differences between expressions of affective empathy, cognitive empathy, compassion and no empathy, this study aimed to test whether lay participants' evaluations of the quality-of-care depend on the type of empathic physician behavior, and on the physician's gender. We conducted a randomized web-based experiment using a 4 (type of empathy) by 2 (physician gender) between-subjects design. Empathy was subdivided into three concepts: first, affective empathy (i.e. feeling with someone); second, cognitive empathy (i.e. understanding); and third, compassion (i.e. feeling for someone and offering support). Perceived quality-of-care was the primary outcome. Compared with non-empathic interactions, quality-of-care was rated higher when physicians reacted cognitively empathic or compassionate (d = 0.71; 0.43 to 1.00 and d = 0.68; 0.38 to 0.98). No significant difference was found between affective empathy and no empathy (d = 0.13; -0.14 to 0.42). The physician's gender was not related with quality-of-care. Aspects of participants' personality but not their age, gender or the number of physician visits were associated with quality-of-care. No interactions were observed. In showing that patients rated quality-of-care higher when physician reactions were described as cognitively empathic and compassionate, as compared with affectively empathic or non-empathic, our findings refine views about the kinds of empathy that are important in patient care with implications for clinical practice, education and communication trainings.

Background: In a growing number of countries, patients are offered access to their full online clinical records, including the narrative reports written by clinicians (the latter, referred to as "open notes"). Even in countries with mature patient online record access, access to psychotherapy notes is not mandatory. To date, no research has explored the views of psychotherapy trainees about open notes., Objective: This study aimed to explore the opinions of psychotherapy trainees in Switzerland about patients' access to psychotherapists' free-text summaries., Methods: We administered a web-based mixed methods survey to 201 psychotherapy trainees to explore their familiarity with and opinions about the impact on patients and psychotherapy practice of offering patients online access to their psychotherapy notes. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the 42-item survey, and qualitative descriptive analysis was employed to examine written responses to four open-ended questions., Results: Seventy-two (35.8%) trainees completed the survey. Quantitative results revealed mixed views about open notes. 75% agreed that, in general open notes were a good idea, and 94.1% agreed that education about open notes should be part of psychotherapy training. When considering impact on patients and psychotherapy, four themes emerged: (a) negative impact on therapy; (b) positive impact on therapy; (c) impact on patients; and (d) documentation. Students identified concerns related to increase in workload, harm to the psychotherapeutic relationship, and compromised quality of records. They also identified many potential benefits including better patient communication and informed consent processes. In describing impact on different therapy types, students believed that open notes might have differential impact depending on the psychotherapy approaches., Conclusions: Sharing psychotherapy notes is not routine but is likely to expand. This mixed methods study provides timely insights into the views of psychotherapy trainees regarding the impact of open notes on patient care and psychotherapy practice., Competing Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Background: Having online access to electronic health records (EHRs) may help patients become engaged in their care at an early age. However, little is known about adolescents using patient portals. A national survey conducted within the Nordic eHealth project NORDeHEALTH provided an important opportunity to advance our understanding of adolescent users of patient portals. The present study explored reasons for reading the EHRs, the perceived usefulness of information and functions in a patient portal and the association between frequency of use and encouragement to read the EHR., Methods: Data were collected in a survey using convenience sampling, available through the Swedish online health portal during 3 weeks in January and February 2022. This study included a subset of items and only respondents aged 15-19. Demographic factors and frequencies on Likert-style questions were reported with descriptive statistics, while Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences in use frequency based on having been encouraged to read by a healthcare professional (HCP)., Results: Of 13 008 users who completed the survey, 218 (1.7%) were unique users aged 15-19 (females: 77.1%). One-fifth (47/218, 21.6%) had been encouraged by HCPs to read their records, and having been encouraged by HCPs was related to higher use frequency (p=0.018). All types of information were rated high on usefulness, while some functions were rated low, such as blocking specific clinical notes from HCPs and managing services for family members. The main reason for reading their health records online was out of curiosity., Conclusions: Adolescents who read their records online perceive it to be useful. Encouragement by HCPs can lead to increased use of patient portals among adolescents. Findings should be considered in the future design of patient portals for adolescents., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Following the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022, interest in large language model (LLM)-powered chatbots has surged with increasing focus on the clinical potential of these tools. Missing from this discussion, however, are the perspectives of physicians. The current study aimed to explore psychiatrists' experiences and opinions on this new generation of chatbots in mental health care. An online survey including both quantitative and qualitative responses was distributed to a non-probability sample of psychiatrists affiliated with the American Psychiatric Association. Findings revealed 44 % of psychiatrists had used OpenAI's ChatGPT-3.5 and 33 % had used GPT-4.0 "to assist with answering clinical questions." Administrative tasks were cited as a major benefit of these tools: 70 % somewhat agreed/agreed "documentation will be/is more efficient". Three in four psychiatrists (75 %) somewhat agreed/agreed "the majority of their patients will consult these tools before first seeing a doctor". Nine in ten somewhat agreed/agreed that clinicians need more support/training in understanding these tools. Open-ended responses reflected these opinions but respondents also expressed divergent opinions on the value of generative AI in clinical practice, including its impact on the future of the profession., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)