Knowledge precedes practice: What Saudi studies say about doctors' artificial intelligence
Listen to this article
Read by Anchor
The problem with medical artificial intelligence is not always convincing physicians that the technology exists. In three recent Saudi studies reported by Al-Watan, knowledge appears high, but the path from awareness to safe institutional use still contains gaps in training, privacy and controls.
The first study, published in August 2026 in Frontiers in Health Services, says it included 521 health practitioners in Saudi Arabia, including 160 physicians. Eighty-nine point one percent of participants said they know medical AI, while 51.2 % had used it before. Among physicians, 66.9 % reported using it, compared with 60.7 % of administrators, 40 % of nurses and 38.6 % of allied health workers.
Gap Between Knowledge and Use
Among physicians, the study reports a knowledge rate of 93.1 %, a gap of 26.2 percentage points from the prior usage rate. It also notes that 71.6 % of the participating health practitioners intend to use AI, while the previous usage rate remained at 51.2 %. These differences do not make the technology itself a failure or a success, but they suggest that knowing the tool does not automatically translate into daily practice.
The institution appears in the same figures. Thirty-seven percent of participants reported sufficient institutional support, while 38.2 % of 267 participants who had previously used the technology said their health institutions gave it low priority. The study, according to the report, concludes that there is a need to expand training, technical support and resources to implement the technology within health facilities.
Trust Requires Operating Rules
A second Saudi study, published online in September 2026 in the International Journal of Medical Informatics, examined physicians’ awareness of clinical and generative AI, their attitudes and the barriers to its use. The study included 548 physicians in Saudi health institutions, and its detailed analyses relied on 428 complete responses. Al-Watan reported that the results showed medium to high awareness and positive attitudes, while challenges related to data privacy, training, ethical and regulatory considerations persisted.
The third study links physicians with patients. Among 393 physicians, 66.7 % said they dealt with patients who used the technology to obtain health information. Seventy-eight point four percent saw risks associated with self-diagnosis, while 56.2 % said the tools help patients understand health information. This does not settle the tool’s value, but it defines an additional task for physicians: reviewing what reaches the patient and verifying its accuracy.
For the Saudi health sector, the practical signal is not a single percentage. Preparedness is linked to training, privacy, institutional support and the review of information patients receive. Al-Watan also cautions that the percentages pertain to study samples and do not represent all physicians or health practitioners in the kingdom. These limitations are important because they place the discussion in its proper context: data on specific samples, not a definitive judgment on the entire sector.