RESUMEN
This narrative review meticulously examines the intricate landscape of poisoning incidents within Saudi Arabia, delineating the prevalence and characteristics across three main categories: pharmaceutical, illicit, and chemical substances. Pharmaceutical agents, particularly analgesics and antipsychotics, are identified as leading causes of acute adult poisoning, highlighting the paramount role of their widespread accessibility and the potential risks associated with over-the-counter availability. The review underscores the alarming prevalence of over-the-counter analgesics, such as paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), as the most frequent culprits in poisoning cases, with a significant correlation observed between analgesic poisoning and gender, notably affecting the female population. Additionally, the study delves into the burgeoning issue of illicit drug use, with opioids and amphetamines emerging as substantial contributors to the poisoning landscape, reflecting a broader global trend of increasing substance misuse and its associated health risks. Chemical poisoning, encompassing a range of substances from household cleaners to industrial chemicals, presents another critical area of concern, with specific emphasis on the dangers posed by antiseptics, detergents, and organophosphates. The review identifies a pressing need for targeted public health interventions and policy reforms aimed at mitigating the risks associated with these diverse types of poisoning. By offering a comprehensive overview of the poisoning epidemiology in Saudi Arabia, the study contributes valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of this public health challenge, advocating for enhanced regulatory measures, public awareness campaigns, and improved access to mental health services to address the underlying factors contributing to poisoning incidents.
RESUMEN
AIM: This study aims to explore the critical dimension of assessing the perceptions and readiness of hematologists to embrace artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in their diagnostic and treatment decision-making processes. METHODS: This study used a cross-sectional design for collecting data related to the perceptions and readiness of hematologists using a validated online questionnaire-based survey. Both hematologists (MD) and postgraduate MD students in hematology were included in the study. A total of 188 participants, including 35 hematologists (MD) and 153 MD hematology students, completed the survey. RESULTS: Major challenges include "AI's level of autonomy" and "the complexity in the field of medicine." Major barriers and risks identified include "lack of trust," "management's level of understanding," "dehumanization of healthcare," and "reduction in physicians' skills." Statistically significant differences in perceptions of benefits including resources (p=0.0326, p<0.05) and knowledge (p=0.0262, p<0.05) were observed between genders. Older physicians were observed to be more concerned about the use of AI compared to younger physicians (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: While AI use in hematology diagnosis and treatment decision-making is positively perceived, issues such as lack of trust, transparency, regulations, and poor AI awareness can affect the adoption of AI.