Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used in healthcare. Despite its promise, physicians and trainees remain cautiously optimistic. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess knowledge and attitudes toward AI and to provide recommendations for AI buy-in by physicians. Methods: Searches of PubMed-OVID-IEEE-Scopus, and Web-of-Science for studies in 2013–2024 identified 11,437 records. One-hundred-and-fifteen met inclusion criteria. Fifty-three studies reported quantitative data on physicians’/trainees’ knowledge and were included in the meta-analysis. Results: Our meta-analysis estimated that only 19.6% of physicians and trainees have high overall AI knowledge, while 36.3% have low knowledge. Fifty-five studies evaluated the depth of AI knowledge. These studies consistently concluded that most physicians or trainees possess only moderate conceptual knowledge of AI, and their technical knowledge is usually limited. Qualitative evaluations also highlighted that a high level of conceptual AI knowledge is associated with greater receptiveness to AI implementation in medicine. We identified five major barriers to translating AI to the bedside with physician buy-in. Conclusion: Although physicians and trainees are generally receptive to AI, many barriers hinder adoption. To address them, we recommend establishing standardized AI education and workforce training, involving clinicians early in AI design, clarifying legal and regulatory issues, leveraging insights from clinical decision support system implementation to reduce workflow challenges, and integrating patient-centered communication principles to enhance trust and transparency.

Zoonotic diseases pose a growing global health threat, particularly in low-resource settings where human-animal-environmental interfaces are common. Although Ghana has adopted One Health policies, limited evidence exists on frontline healthcare workers’ (FHWs) zoonosis preparedness. Thus, this study assessed FHWs’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to zoonoses and One Health in Ghana’s Ada East district. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 250 FHWs across 18 selected health facilities. A 54-item questionnaire measured knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding priority zoonoses, Ebola virus disease, and the One Health approach. Scores were scaled to 100% and dichotomized using Bloom’s cut-off, with >60% representing “good knowledge,” “positive attitudes,” or “good practices.” Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of good knowledge and practices. According to this study, while 79.2% of FHWs scored ≥60% on the total knowledge scale, classified as “good knowledge” of zoonoses, Ebola virus disease, and One Health, only 22.4% correctly identified >60% of listed zoonoses. Ebola-specific knowledge was high, though misconceptions about transmission and treatment persisted. Only 6.8% scored ≥60% on the attitude scale, reflecting limited confidence and widespread concern about personal safety, institutional readiness, and community stigma. While 47.2% demonstrated “good” prevention and control practices, institutional protocol use and intersectoral collaboration were limited. Rabies-focused training increased odds of good knowledge (AOR = 3.25, 95% CI: 1.04–11.1) and practices (AOR = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.07–5.87). In-facility training improved practices (AOR = 2.77, 95% CI: 1.34–5.92), whereas government-delivered training and infrequent climate-health engagement were linked to poor knowledge and practices. Gaps in zoonoses literacy and institutional preparedness were evident among FHWs. Targeted staff retraining, peer-led mentorship, and expanded rabies training may offer practical entry points for One Health capacity building. Addressing stigma and embedding climate-health content into community-based risk communication may improve frontline readiness.

Despite advancement in vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 over time, many concerns remain about reinfection and waning immunity against COVID-19 and its variants, including among individuals treated with stimulants. The study aimed to evaluate the risk of COVID-19 reinfection and severe illness among adults prescribed stimulants compared to those not on stimulant therapy to elucidate the potential relationship of this therapy to the COVID-19 reinfection-related outcomes. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the TriNetX database consisting of over 2,563,130 adults (age ≥18 years) with COVID-19 infection from January 1, 2020 to April 30, 2022. COVID-19 reinfection was defined as a new COVID-19 illness documented ≥ 30 days after the initial infection. Logistic regression was applied to assess the odds ratios (ORs) of COVID-19 reinfection and severe illness course (presence of emergence department (ED), hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) care, mortality) within 30 days of reinfection, controlled for demographic and comorbid condition characteristics. Analysis revealed that adults who received at least three prescriptions for stimulants, compared to those without any stimulant prescriptions within six months prior to the initial COVID-19 illness, were more likely to be re-infected by COVID-19 (aOR=1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32- 1.41), but less likely to be treated in the ED (aOR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.72-0.82), hospital (aOR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.63-0.82), ICU (aOR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.89), or die (aOR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.15-0.64) within 30 days of reinfection (all p-values < 0.01). The study offers additional insights into the potential risks and benefits of prescription stimulants to aid in clinical decision making for treating COVID-19 reinfection in adults on stimulant therapy.

Since December 2019, over 770 million cases and over 6.9 million deaths attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection have been reported globally. 1 The pandemic has disproportionately affected populations impacted by chronic health issues, including people with chronic non- cancer pain. 2,3 Research has shown the COVID-19 pandemic increased the burden of chronic pain, with worsened social isolation, economic stress, anxiety, and disrupted access to pain management contributing to this distress. 2,4,5 Pharmacological treatments, including long-term opioid therapy (LTOT), are a part of standard of care in chronic non-cancer pain, 6,7 with an increase in opioid medication use for managing chronic pain noted likely in compensation for stopping physical/psychological treatments due to the pandemic.

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) is a significant extra-articular manifestation of rheumatoid arthritis that contributes to morbidity, functional limitation, exertional dyspnea, fatigue and reduced quality of life. Current pharmacologic therapies address inflammatory and fibrotic pathways but do not target deconditioning, ventilatory inefficiency, skeletal muscle dysfunction or the high burden of anxiety, depression, impaired emotional well-being and reduced daily functioning. Objective: To synthesize the evidence supporting the use of structured exercise and pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) on functional, psychological and quality of life outcomes in RA-ILD patients by integrating findings from RA-ILD cohorts, interstitial lung disease (ILD) PR trials, and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) exercise interventions. Methods: A structured narrative review was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (1990–2025). Of the 1240 identified records, 32 studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 4 RA-ILD observational cohorts, 17 ILD PR trials and 11 RA exercise trials. No randomized controlled trials specifically evaluating PR in RA-ILD were identified. Available evidence was extrapolated from studies in general ILD and RA populations. Mechanistic and physiological literature was included to contextualize findings. Results: RA and ILD cohorts demonstrated markedly reduced six-minute walk distance, impaired diffusing capacity, exertional desaturation, fatigue, high anxiety and depression, and diminished daily function. Across seventeen PR trials, patients with idiopathic, autoimmune-associated, and fibrotic ILD showed improvements in exercise capacity, ventilatory efficiency, dyspnea, fatigue, psychological distress, emotional well-being, and health-related quality of life. Eleven RA exercise studies demonstrated improved aerobic capacity, strength, lean mass, fatigue, psychological outcomes (including anxiety), and function, with no increase in disease activity. Conclusions: Evidence from ILD PR and RA exercise literature suggest that structured rehabilitation has the potential, alongside pharmacological therapy, to address functional limitation, dyspnea, fatigue and psychological distress and overall quality of life in RA-ILD, though disease-specific trials are needed.

The readability and length of informed consent forms have been debated for over three decades. Despite national guidelines promoting patient-friendly language, many forms fall short. This study compares the readability and content quality of informed consents from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) and ChatGPT for common plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) procedures. ASPS consents for seven common PRS procedures were obtained online. ChatGPT was then queried to create equivalent consents. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, and Lexical Density. Quality was graded using a modified National Quality Forum-based scale across domains: Procedure description, clinical rationale, patient-oriented benefit, quantitative and qualitative risks, and alternatives. Scores were compared between ASPS and ChatGPT consent forms. ASPS versus ChatGPT conversion yielded mean Flesch scores of 30.09 versus 46.18 (p = 0.00003), grade levels of 13.59 versus 10.53 (p = 0.000004), and lexical densities of 56.7% versus 46.6% (p = 0.00008). Word count decreased by 81% after conversion. ASPS consents exceeded ChatGPT quality in three of seven procedures (by 12.8 percentage points on average), while ChatGPT exceeded ASPS in four of seven (by 25 points on average). Average quality scores were not significantly different (64.83% vs. 73.63%, p = 0.27). ChatGPT improved the readability and brevity of PRS consent forms while maintaining accuracy. Readily available artificial intelligence (AI) tools may enhance descriptions of procedures, rationale, patient benefits, and quantitative risks, offering a practical tool to aid in patient–provider communication.