Avalilação PREreview Estruturada de Perceptions, Preparedness, and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence Integration in Government Healthcare Institutions in Al Buraimi Governorate, Oman: A Cross‑Sectional Study

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Partly

The introduction partly explains the objectives, putting in more consideration to addressing gaps in AI integration, in government healthcare institutions in Al-Buraimi Governorate, Oman. We appreciate the theoretical framework and also the empirical evidence to strengthen their objectives. However, we will like you to address some concern in the study: 1. Paragraph 2 and 4 of the introduction are lengthy and doesn't align with the objective. 2. The problem statement is missing — why that specific region/hospital? 3. You could improve on the connection of paragraphs so that the information won't be lost and there would be proper presentation of the rationale behind the study.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Neither appropriate nor inappropriate

We acknowledge the rigorous process of going through ethical approval and using the quantitative deductive approach, and also sending an anonymous questionnaire for recruiting participants in your study. However, we suggest you should integrate qualitative design to strengthen your study (an explanatory sequential mixed method study), also justify your study settings (the facilities involved in the study), the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the informed consent of the research — was it written or verbal? Also, justify the sample size and sampling strategy used for the study.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

The conclusion is partially supported by the data in the results but however, it doesn't justify the evidence.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Neither appropriate and clear nor inappropriate and unclear

The data represented are complex and aren't graphically appealing. In the reporting, columns used in the table are; low, moderate and high, but from your Materials and Method section, you made mention of using the Likert scale. You can improve the presentation by incorporating a diverging bar chart to show the distribution of their responses, the key findings and the relationship between the variables, to help us understand the data interpretation.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat unclearly

Some of the interpretations appears speculative and full of data which are not necessary in the discussion. We suggest that the authors should clearly interprete their findings in the context of their study and the approach they used without necessarily over hyping the discussion. You should also acknowledge the limitations of the study design.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Not at all likely

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

No, it’s of low quality or is majorly flawed

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

No, it needs a major revision

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.