The survey separately targeted attending doctors and residents with similar structured questionnaires containing 27 items. These covered respondents’ demographic characteristics and AI literacy, attitudes toward the clinical use of AI, and preferences for integrating AI education into the curriculum. Responses were collected through the Sojump online platform after quick-response codes were distributed through WeChat or email.

Researchers analyzed the results in SPSS 25.0. The statistical procedures included chi-square tests for comparisons between the doctor and resident groups, reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha, and validity analysis with the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure. The supplied study abstract does not report the individual test statistics or establish which observed group differences were statistically significant.

Attitudes toward clinical AI were generally favorable in the surveyed population. The clearest reported result concerned the possible role of AI in clinical work: 74.63% of doctors agreed that AI could partially replace doctors’ work in certain situations. This response reflects an expectation about how some tasks might be handled; the survey did not test an AI system, compare clinical performance, or measure effects on diagnostic accuracy, patient outcomes, or workflow efficiency.

Interest in further education differed between the two professional groups. A total of 78.7% of doctors said they were willing to learn more about AI, compared with 52.43% of residents. These proportions describe willingness expressed in the questionnaire rather than participation in a training program or subsequent changes in knowledge or clinical behavior.

The authors characterized the combined results as showing perceived readiness among doctors and residents to engage with AI-related material. They also interpreted the findings as evidence of demand for integrating AI education into clinical teaching. The survey was designed to examine educational preferences as well as attitudes and literacy, making curriculum integration a central reported outcome rather than an inference based only on favorable views of the technology.

Because the research was cross-sectional, it did not track participants over time and therefore cannot show that attitudes toward AI were changing. The results also come from one hospital and a defined population of attending doctors and residents, so they should not automatically be generalized to medical students, clinicians at other institutions, or healthcare systems in other regions. The study’s scope was educational needs and perceptions, not an evaluation of clinical AI performance.

Overall, the survey documents a combination of favorable attitudes, limited reported AI experience and differing levels of interest in additional learning among doctors and residents at the Tianjin hospital. Its clearest educational message is that clinicians in this sample wanted opportunities to engage with AI content, while formal coursework and direct experience remained uncommon.

Subject of Research: Cross-sectional survey of doctors’ and residents’ AI literacy, attitudes and medical curriculum preferences at Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University.

Article Title: Doctors’ and residents’ perspectives on artificial intelligence in medicine: a survey on educational needs and curriculum integration

Article References: Hong, J., Guo, L. Y. X., Peng, Y., Chen, L., & Zhao, B. (2026). Doctors’ and residents’ perspectives on artificial intelligence in medicine: a survey on educational needs and curriculum integration. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10399-0

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-10399-0

Keywords: clinical artificial intelligence, medical education, AI literacy, curriculum integration, resident physicians, attending doctors, survey research, Tianjin Medical University, healthcare technology, Doctors, residents, perspectives