The GenAI transparency dilemma: physicians torn between honesty and risk

Glenna Crooks, PhD and Paul Hambly, EVP of Supply at Toluna

AI is transforming industries across the board, and healthcare is no exception. This is the sixth in a series of articles reviewing physicians’ perspectives on GenAI. This article uncovers the complex psychology behind physicians’ disclosure decisions: although an overwhelming majority believe in transparency regarding GenAI use, many fear the consequences of being honest with patients. What’s also interesting is that non-physician healthcare professionals view this dilemma quite differently.

A consensus on transparency

The data reveals a profession wrestling with maintaining trust while embracing innovation. Across every demographic we surveyed, physicians showed remarkable consistency on one principle: patients should know when GenAI assists with diagnosis and treatment recommendations.

This convergence of belief did not occur in any other survey question. The numbers are clear: 73-76% of physicians across all demographicsagree, and this consensus spans:

Patient types (adult vs. pediatric vs. mixed practices).
Practice settings (primary care vs. specialty, hospital vs. private practice).
Patient volume (low, medium, and high-volume physicians).
Practice sites (hospitals/teaching hospitals vs. community settings), locations, and physician experience levels.

The fear factor

The results are complicated by fears physicians have about the consequences of transparency. Nearly one-third of physicians (32%) fear losing patients if they’re made aware of physicians’ use of GenAI in their care. This creates a transparency paradox, as a physician’s honesty can damage their practice.

The volume effect

Though all physicians express some fear, high-volume physicians are statistically more likely to be concerned than mid- or low-volume physicians:

High volume (150+ patients per week): 40%
Mid volume (50-150 patients per week): 32%
Low volume (1-50 patients per week): 30%.

A professional divide

Some non-physician healthcare providers were included in our survey – their views differed from those of physicians. A statistically significant number of non-physician healthcare workers (38%) fear losing patients due to the disclosure of GenAI.

Ethical implications

Physicians’ commitment to disclosure, despite their fears, demonstrates the profession’s ethical foundation, regardless of the associated business risks. Their willingness to risk business consequences for transparency reflects the patient-first tradition. This aspect of physicians’ views is explored in greater detail in our upcoming article.

Coming next:

Our next article will delve deeper into how physicians perceive the risks of GenAI in healthcare, as well as their views on policy and regulatory agencies’ ability to mitigate those risks and prevent patient harm.

Endnote:

As part of our “AI Everywhere” strategy, Toluna is committed to helping organizations navigate the opportunities and responsibilities that AI brings with it. We partnered with Glenna Crooks, PhD, a recognized policy strategist in global healthcare, to engage over 2,000 physicians on their views of generative AI.[1]

Using Curizon, Toluna’s proprietary panel of healthcare professionals, we explored perceived benefits and risks of AI in healthcare, accountability in the event of harm, and the need for ethical guidelines. The research also examined the advisability of a GenAI Oath modeled after traditional oaths taken by healthcare professionals.

[1]This survey was scripted and programmed by Toluna and fielded in February 2026 with 2,739 healthcare professionals in Toluna’s proprietary healthcare panel Curizon. Survey author: Perso