Iranian Physicians’ Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: A Qualitative Interview Study Examining Augmentation Versus Replacement

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become increasingly integrated into healthcare workflows, debates have emerged about whether these tools will serve merely to augment physician capacities or whether they may eventually replace elements of human clinical decision-making. While international studies have investigated these questions, little is known about how physicians in Middle Eastern contexts, particularly Iran, view this evolving role of AI. This study aimed to explore Iranian physicians’ perspectives on artificial intelligence in medicine, focusing on whether AI is perceived as a supportive augmentation tool or a potential substitute for core clinical functions. A qualitative design was employed using semi-structured interviews with 20 Iranian physicians across multiple specialties. Interviews were thematically analyzed to identify patterns in perceptions, concerns, and expectations surrounding AI adoption. Five major themes emerged: (1) AI as a clinical augmentation tool, (2) skepticism toward full replacement, (3) shifting professional identity, (4) challenges of trust and explainability, and (5) unmet infrastructural and educational needs. While AI was generally viewed as beneficial for diagnostic support and efficiency, concerns persisted about the loss of clinical autonomy, deskilling, and the lack of interpretability in AI systems. Iranian physicians largely view AI as a complement rather than a replacement for human expertise. Successful integration will require attention to ethical, cultural, and infrastructural contexts, as well as targeted training and regulatory frameworks.

Ähnliche Arbeiten