The trend of choosing natural birth at home without proper supervision is gaining more attention and popularity in Malaysia. This is partly due to wrong beliefs of modern medical care. It prompts the need to explore further into other myths and wrong beliefs present in communities around the world surrounding pregnancy and childbirth that may lead to harmful consequences. A total of 25 literatures were selected and reviewed. The most reported wrong belief is the eating behaviour such as avoiding certain nutritious fruits besides eating saffron to produce fairer skinned babies which in fact contains high doses of saffron that may lead to miscarriage. The most worrying myth however, is that unregulated birth attendants such as doulas have the necessary knowledge and skills to manage complications in labour which may well end up in perinatal or even maternal death. Other myths suggested that modern medical care such as vaginal examinations and baby’s heart monitoring in labour as unnecessary. A well-enforced health education programme by well-trained healthcare personnel besides sufficient number of antenatal care visits are needed to overcome these myths, wrong beliefs and practices. In conclusion, potential harmful beliefs and practices in pregnancy and childbirth are still abound in today’s communities, not just in least developed and developing countries but also in developed countries. Women and children are two very vulnerable groups, therefore debunking myths and eliminating harmful practices should be one of a healthcare provider priority especially those in the primary care settings as they are the closest to the community.

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) is on the rise in the healthcare industry. However, the study on the physicians’ perspectives is still lacking. The study aimed to examine physicians’ attitudes, expectations, and concerns regarding the application of AI in medicine. A cross-sectional study was conducted in October 2019 among physicians in a tertiary teaching hospital in Malaysia. The survey used a validated questionnaire from the literature, which covered: (1) socio-demographic profile; (2) attitude towards the application of AI; (3) expected application in medicine; and (4) possible risks of using AI. Comparison of the mean score between the groups using a t-test or one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). A total of 112 physicians participated in the study: 64.3% from the clinical departments; 35.7% from the non-clinical specialties. The physicians from non-clinical departments had significantly higher mean attitude score (mean = 14.94 ± 3.12) compared to the clinical (person-oriented) departments (mean = 14.13 ± 3.10) and clinical (technique-oriented) departments (mean = 13.06 ± 2.88) (p = 0.033). The tech-savvy participants had a significantly higher mean attitude score (mean = 14.72 ± 3.55) than the non–tech-savvy participants (mean = 13.21 ± 2.46) (p = 0.01). There are differences in the expectations among the respondents and some concerns exist especially on the legal aspect of AI application in medicine. Proper training and orientation should precede its implementation and must be appropriate to the physicians’ needs for its utilization and sustainability.