Currently submitted to: Journal of Participatory Medicine
Date Submitted: Oct 4, 2026
Open Peer Review Period: Oct 13, 2026 - Dec 8, 2026
(currently open for review)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited.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.
Bias, Benefit, or Both?: Surveying Perceptions of AI in Healthcare
ABSTRACT
Background:
Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping healthcare, presenting new opportunities in diagnostics, clinical decision support, workflow optimization, patient engagement, and population health. Yet important concerns remain about trust, transparency, bias, privacy, and the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks.
Objective:
The objective of this study was to compare the perspectives of Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) and non-HCPs on the integration of AI in healthcare, with a focus on identifying perceived benefits, risks, ethical concerns, and barriers to adoption.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of adults aged ≥18, sampling both HCPs and non-HCPs. The questionnaire assessed perceived benefits and risks of AI, trust in AI systems, health bot applications, privacy and ethical concerns, regulatory priorities, and views on AI’s role in clinical decision-making. Responses from HCPs and non-HCPs were compared using descriptive statistics and group-level difference testing.
Results:
A total of 297 participants completed the survey, including 189 HCPs and 108 non-HCPs. Both groups expressed strong agreement that AI can improve efficiency, enhance access to care, support diagnosis, reduce medical errors, and aid early disease detection. However, trust in AI systems remained limited: nearly two-thirds of respondents expressed no confidence in AI’s ability to ensure privacy, safeguard data, or make unbiased ethical decisions. HCPs demonstrated greater emphasis on safety, accountability, transparency, and regulatory oversight, particularly in high-risk clinical environments, whereas non-HCPs were more likely to endorse shared responsibility when AI causes harm. Across groups, the majority believed that AI should serve primarily as an assistive tool, with humans retaining decision-making authority. Concerns about cost, infrastructure, and digital literacy were prominent barriers to equitable AI adoption.
Conclusions:
Despite recognizing AI’s potential benefits, both clinicians and the public remain cautious about its risks and ethical limitations. These findings highlight the need for robust governance, transparent design, targeted education, and human-centered approaches to promote trustworthy, safe, and equitable AI integration in healthcare.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© 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.