Previously submitted to: JMIR Medical Education (no longer under consideration since Feb 03, 2026)
Date Submitted: Nov 24, 2025
Open Peer Review Period: Nov 25, 2025 - Jan 20, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited.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.
Artificial Intelligence Tool Use and Perceptions Among Australian General Practitioner Trainees: A National Survey
ABSTRACT
Background:
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly prevalent in healthcare. However, little is known about how frequently Australian general practitioner (GP) trainees (registrars) use AI or how they perceive its potential impact on training.
Objective:
This study aimed to explore how frequently Australian GP registrars use AI tools during training, what types of AI technologies they use, and their perceptions of AI’s benefits, risks, and training needs.
Methods:
A cross-sectional national online survey was conducted from May 7 to June 4, 2024. GP registrars (3743) enrolled in the Australian General Practice Training and the Fellowship Support programs run by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners were invited to participate; 727 (19.5%) responded. The survey included 13 questions exploring self-reported frequency of AI use in clinical, educational, and personal contexts, practice AI governance, context and types of AI tool use, perceived impacts of AI on training, extent of AI-related education received, and ethico-legal concerns. Results are reported as percentages.
Results:
Most registrars reported infrequent or no use of AI. For clinical tasks, 7.3% (53/727) used AI at least weekly. Similarly, only 4.9% (36/727) used AI weekly or more for educational tasks. Practice-level adoption was limited, with 10.8% (78/725) of registrars reporting their practice subscribed to any AI tools. General large language models, remote patient monitoring devices and note-taking voice-to-text tools were the most common AI tools used in the clinic. For education, general large language models dominated, used by 63.5% of those using AI (141/222), far more than any other tool. Most registrars anticipated benefits from AI, particularly for learning efficiency and reducing administrative workload. However, 25% (181/724) believed AI could increase medicolegal risk. Formal training was rare; most had received minimal or none and thus relied on self-directed learning. Most registrars rated formal training in AI competencies as at least moderately important.
Conclusions:
At the time of the survey, AI use among registrars was limited, though most recognized its potential. Enthusiasm was tempered by concerns about safety, ethics, and legal risks. Structured AI training and clear guidelines are needed to support safe, effective adoption in general practice and education.
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.