Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Currently submitted to: JMIR Formative Research

Date Submitted: Jun 18, 2026

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Generative AI in Primary Care: A qualitative study of UK General Practitioners’ Views

  • Charlotte Blease; 
  • Anna Kharko; 
  • Carolina Garcia Sanchez; 
  • Jens Gaab; 
  • Stephanie Kumpunen; 
  • David Sundemo; 
  • John Torous

ABSTRACT

Background:

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly entering primary care, yet evidence has focused largely on adoption rates rather than how clinicians interpret the role, risks, and professional implications of these technologies. Quantitative findings from the third wave of the GPAI-UK survey suggest rapidly increasing use among UK general practitioners (GPs), alongside uncertainty about how AI may reshape clinical work. Qualitative insight is needed to understand how GPs are making sense of this change.

Objective:

This study aimed to explore how UK GPs conceptualise the role of GenAI in general practice, including perceived benefits, risks, and implications for professional identity and the future of the GP role.

Methods:

We conducted an exploratory qualitative analysis of free-text responses from the 2026 GPAI-UK survey, an annual online, convenience sample survey administered via Doctors.net.uk as part of a scheduled omnibus. The survey included a single optional open-ended question inviting comments on AI and general practice. Responses were analysed using an inductive, descriptive thematic approach.

Results:

A total of 232 GPs provided free-text comments. Four overarching themes were identified. First, GPs largely framed GenAI as a pragmatic administrative tool, particularly for documentation, rather than a substitute for clinical judgment. Second, respondents expressed concrete concerns about risks and harms, including errors, hallucinations, deskilling, medico-legal accountability and environmental concerns. Third, many situated AI within broader political and economic narratives, expressing distrust toward institutional and commercial drivers of adoption. Finally, GPs anticipated substantial transformation of general practice while expressing ambivalence and uncertainty about its direction, with some respondents feeling ill-equipped to offer predictions.

Conclusions:

Although based on brief, self-selected free-text responses from a convenience sample, this qualitative study offers original insight into how UK GPs are making sense of GenAI as it becomes embedded in primary care. Situated within the third consecutive year of a national survey program, the findings capture evolving clinician attitudes and experiences, including how GPs conceptualize the appropriate role of AI, articulate emerging risks, and anticipate future professional change.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Blease C, Kharko A, Garcia Sanchez C, Gaab J, Kumpunen S, Sundemo D, Torous J

Generative AI in Primary Care: A qualitative study of UK General Practitioners’ Views

JMIR Preprints. 18/06/2026:105015

DOI: 10.2196/preprints.105015

URL: https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/105015

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.