Patient attitudes toward the AI doctor

Aaron Fanous,Kirsten Steffner,Roxana Daneshjou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03272-4

IF: 82.9

2024-09-25

Nature Medicine

Abstract:As medical AI development gathers momentum, a new study reveals that much work still needs to be done before the public will willingly embrace AI-based technologies in healthcare.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Public perceptions of artificial intelligence in healthcare: ethical concerns and opportunities for patient-centered care

Kaila Witkowski,Ratna Okhai,Stephen R Neely

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01066-4

2024-06-22

Abstract:Background: In an effort to improve the quality of medical care, the philosophy of patient-centered care has become integrated into almost every aspect of the medical community. Despite its widespread acceptance, among patients and practitioners, there are concerns that rapid advancements in artificial intelligence may threaten elements of patient-centered care, such as personal relationships with care providers and patient-driven choices. This study explores the extent to which patients are confident in and comfortable with the use of these technologies when it comes to their own individual care and identifies areas that may align with or threaten elements of patient-centered care. Methods: An exploratory, mixed-method approach was used to analyze survey data from 600 US-based adults in the State of Florida. The survey was administered through a leading market research provider (August 10-21, 2023), and responses were collected to be representative of the state's population based on age, gender, race/ethnicity, and political affiliation. Results: Respondents were more comfortable with the use of AI in health-related tasks that were not associated with doctor-patient relationships, such as scheduling patient appointments or follow-ups (84.2%). Fear of losing the 'human touch' associated with doctors was a common theme within qualitative coding, suggesting a potential conflict between the implementation of AI and patient-centered care. In addition, decision self-efficacy was associated with higher levels of comfort with AI, but there were also concerns about losing decision-making control, workforce changes, and cost concerns. A small majority of participants mentioned that AI could be useful for doctors and lead to more equitable care but only when used within limits. Conclusion: The application of AI in medical care is rapidly advancing, but oversight, regulation, and guidance addressing critical aspects of patient-centered care are lacking. While there is no evidence that AI will undermine patient-physician relationships at this time, there is concern on the part of patients regarding the application of AI within medical care and specifically as it relates to their interaction with physicians. Medical guidance on incorporating AI while adhering to the principles of patient-centered care is needed to clarify how AI will augment medical care.
Patient Perspectives on AI for Mental Health Care: Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Natalie Benda,Pooja Desai,Zayan Reza,Anna Zheng,Shiveen Kumar,Sarah Harkins,Alison Hermann,Yiye Zhang,Rochelle Joly,Jessica Kim,Jyotishman Pathak,Meghan Reading Turchioe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/58462

2024-09-18

Abstract:Background: The application of artificial intelligence (AI) to health and health care is rapidly increasing. Several studies have assessed the attitudes of health professionals, but far fewer studies have explored the perspectives of patients or the general public. Studies investigating patient perspectives have focused on somatic issues, including those related to radiology, perinatal health, and general applications. Patient feedback has been elicited in the development of specific mental health care solutions, but broader perspectives toward AI for mental health care have been underexplored. Objective: This study aims to understand public perceptions regarding potential benefits of AI, concerns about AI, comfort with AI accomplishing various tasks, and values related to AI, all pertaining to mental health care. Methods: We conducted a 1-time cross-sectional survey with a nationally representative sample of 500 US-based adults. Participants provided structured responses on their perceived benefits, concerns, comfort, and values regarding AI for mental health care. They could also add free-text responses to elaborate on their concerns and values. Results: A plurality of participants (245/497, 49.3%) believed AI may be beneficial for mental health care, but this perspective differed based on sociodemographic variables (all P<.05). Specifically, Black participants (odds ratio [OR] 1.76, 95% CI 1.03-3.05) and those with lower health literacy (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.29-3.78) perceived AI to be more beneficial, and women (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-0.99) perceived AI to be less beneficial. Participants endorsed concerns about accuracy, possible unintended consequences such as misdiagnosis, the confidentiality of their information, and the loss of connection with their health professional when AI is used for mental health care. A majority of participants (80.4%, 402/500) valued being able to understand individual factors driving their risk, confidentiality, and autonomy as it pertained to the use of AI for their mental health. When asked who was responsible for the misdiagnosis of mental health conditions using AI, 81.6% (408/500) of participants found the health professional to be responsible. Qualitative results revealed similar concerns related to the accuracy of AI and how its use may impact the confidentiality of patients' information. Conclusions: Future work involving the use of AI for mental health care should investigate strategies for conveying the level of AI's accuracy, factors that drive patients' mental health risks, and how data are used confidentially so that patients can determine with their health professionals when AI may be beneficial. It will also be important in a mental health care context to ensure the patient-health professional relationship is preserved when AI is used.
Acceptance of clinical artificial intelligence among physicians and medical students: A systematic review with cross-sectional survey

Mingyang Chen,Bo Zhang,Ziting Cai,Samuel Seery,Maria J. Gonzalez,Nasra M. Ali,Ran Ren,Youlin Qiao,Peng Xue,Yu Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.990604

IF: 3.9

2022-08-31

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:Background Artificial intelligence (AI) needs to be accepted and understood by physicians and medical students, but few have systematically assessed their attitudes. We investigated clinical AI acceptance among physicians and medical students around the world to provide implementation guidance. Materials and methods We conducted a two-stage study, involving a foundational systematic review of physician and medical student acceptance of clinical AI. This enabled us to design a suitable web-based questionnaire which was then distributed among practitioners and trainees around the world. Results Sixty studies were included in this systematic review, and 758 respondents from 39 countries completed the online questionnaire. Five (62.50%) of eight studies reported 65% or higher awareness regarding the application of clinical AI. Although, only 10–30% had actually used AI and 26 (74.28%) of 35 studies suggested there was a lack of AI knowledge. Our questionnaire uncovered 38% awareness rate and 20% utility rate of clinical AI, although 53% lacked basic knowledge of clinical AI. Forty-five studies mentioned attitudes toward clinical AI, and over 60% from 38 (84.44%) studies were positive about AI, although they were also concerned about the potential for unpredictable, incorrect results. Seventy-seven percent were optimistic about the prospect of clinical AI. The support rate for the statement that AI could replace physicians ranged from 6 to 78% across 40 studies which mentioned this topic. Five studies recommended that efforts should be made to increase collaboration. Our questionnaire showed 68% disagreed that AI would become a surrogate physician, but believed it should assist in clinical decision-making. Participants with different identities, experience and from different countries hold similar but subtly different attitudes. Conclusion Most physicians and medical students appear aware of the increasing application of clinical AI, but lack practical experience and related knowledge. Overall, participants have positive but reserved attitudes about AI. In spite of the mixed opinions around clinical AI becoming a surrogate physician, there was a consensus that collaborations between the two should be strengthened. Further education should be conducted to alleviate anxieties associated with change and adopting new technologies.

medicine, general & internal
Patients' Perceptions Toward Human-Artificial Intelligence Interaction in Health Care: Experimental Study

Pouyan Esmaeilzadeh,Tala Mirzaei,Spurthy Dharanikota

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/25856

2021-11-25

Abstract:Background: It is believed that artificial intelligence (AI) will be an integral part of health care services in the near future and will be incorporated into several aspects of clinical care such as prognosis, diagnostics, and care planning. Thus, many technology companies have invested in producing AI clinical applications. Patients are one of the most important beneficiaries who potentially interact with these technologies and applications; thus, patients' perceptions may affect the widespread use of clinical AI. Patients should be ensured that AI clinical applications will not harm them, and that they will instead benefit from using AI technology for health care purposes. Although human-AI interaction can enhance health care outcomes, possible dimensions of concerns and risks should be addressed before its integration with routine clinical care. Objective: The main objective of this study was to examine how potential users (patients) perceive the benefits, risks, and use of AI clinical applications for their health care purposes and how their perceptions may be different if faced with three health care service encounter scenarios. Methods: We designed a 2×3 experiment that crossed a type of health condition (ie, acute or chronic) with three different types of clinical encounters between patients and physicians (ie, AI clinical applications as substituting technology, AI clinical applications as augmenting technology, and no AI as a traditional in-person visit). We used an online survey to collect data from 634 individuals in the United States. Results: The interactions between the types of health care service encounters and health conditions significantly influenced individuals' perceptions of privacy concerns, trust issues, communication barriers, concerns about transparency in regulatory standards, liability risks, benefits, and intention to use across the six scenarios. We found no significant differences among scenarios regarding perceptions of performance risk and social biases. Conclusions: The results imply that incompatibility with instrumental, technical, ethical, or regulatory values can be a reason for rejecting AI applications in health care. Thus, there are still various risks associated with implementing AI applications in diagnostics and treatment recommendations for patients with both acute and chronic illnesses. The concerns are also evident if the AI applications are used as a recommendation system under physician experience, wisdom, and control. Prior to the widespread rollout of AI, more studies are needed to identify the challenges that may raise concerns for implementing and using AI applications. This study could provide researchers and managers with critical insights into the determinants of individuals' intention to use AI clinical applications. Regulatory agencies should establish normative standards and evaluation guidelines for implementing AI in health care in cooperation with health care institutions. Regular audits and ongoing monitoring and reporting systems can be used to continuously evaluate the safety, quality, transparency, and ethical factors of AI clinical applications.
Multinational attitudes towards AI in healthcare and diagnostics among hospital patients

Felix Busch,Lena Hoffmann,Lina Xu,Longjiang Zhang,Bin Hu,Ignacio García-Juàrez,Liz N Toapanta-Yanchapaxi,Natalia Gorelik,Valérie Gorelik,Gaston A Rodriguez-Granillo,Carlos Ferrarotti,Nguyen N Cuong,Chau AP Thi,Murat Tuncel,Gürsan Kaya,Sergio M Solis-Barquero,Maria C Mendez Avila,Nevena G Ivanova,Felipe C Kitamura,Karina YI Hayama,Monserrat L Puntunet Bates,Pedro Iturralde Torres,Esteban Ortiz-Prado,Juan S Izquierdo-Condoy,Gilbert M Schwarz,Jochen G Hofstaetter,Michihiro Hide,Konagi Takeda,Barbara Perić,Gašper Pilko,Hans O Thulesius,Thomas A Lindow,Israel K Kolawole,Samuel Adegboyega Olatoke,Andrzej Grzybowski,Alexandru Corlateanu,Oana-Simina Iaconi,Ting Li,Izabela Domitrz,Katarzyna Kępczyńska,Matúš Mihalčin,Lenka Fašanekovà,Tomasz Zatoński,Katarzyna Fułek,Andràs Molnàr,Stefani Maihoub,Zenewton A da Silva Gama,Luca Saba,Petros Sountoulides,Marcus R Makowski,Hugo JWL Aerts,Lisa C Adams,Keno K Bressem,COMFORT consortium

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.01.24312016

2024-09-02

Abstract:The successful implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is dependent upon the acceptance of this technology by key stakeholders, particularly patients, who are the primary beneficiaries of AI-driven outcomes. This international, multicenter, cross-sectional study assessed the attitudes of hospital patients towards AI in healthcare across 43 countries. A total of 13806 patients at 74 hospitals were surveyed between February and November 2023, with 64.8% from the Global North and 35.2% from the Global South. The findings indicate a predominantly favorable general view of AI in healthcare, with 57.6% of respondents expressing a positive attitude. However, attitudes exhibited notable variation based on demographic characteristics, health status, and technological literacy. Female respondents and those with poorer health status exhibited fewer positive attitudes towards AI use in medicine. Conversely, higher levels of AI knowledge and frequent use of technology devices were associated with more positive attitudes. It is noteworthy that less than half of the participants expressed positive attitudes regarding all items pertaining to trust in AI. The lowest level of trust was observed for the accuracy of AI in providing information regarding treatment responses. Patients exhibited a strong preference for explainable AI and physician-led decision-making, even if it meant slightly compromised accuracy. This large-scale, multinational study provides a comprehensive perspective on patient attitudes towards AI in healthcare across six continents. Findings suggest a need for tailored AI implementation strategies that consider patient demographics, health status, and preferences for explainable AI and physician oversight. All study data has been made publicly available to encourage replication and further investigation.
Attitudes and perception of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A cross-sectional survey among patients

Sebastian J Fritsch,Andrea Blankenheim,Alina Wahl,Petra Hetfeld,Oliver Maassen,Saskia Deffge,Julian Kunze,Rolf Rossaint,Morris Riedel,Gernot Marx,Johannes Bickenbach

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076221116772

2022-08-10

Arbeitsmedizin Sozialmedizin Umweltmedizin

Abstract:ObjectiveThe attitudes about the usage of artificial intelligence in healthcare are controversial. Unlike the perception of healthcare professionals, the attitudes of patients and their companions have been of less interest so far. In this study, we aimed to investigate the perception of artificial intelligence in healthcare among this highly relevant group along with the influence of digital affinity and sociodemographic factors.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using a paper-based questionnaire with patients and their companions at a German tertiary referral hospital from December 2019 to February 2020. The questionnaire consisted of three sections examining (a) the respondents' technical affinity, (b) their perception of different aspects of artificial intelligence in healthcare and (c) sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsFrom a total of 452 participants, more than 90% already read or heard about artificial intelligence, but only 24% reported good or expert knowledge. Asked on their general perception, 53.18% of the respondents rated the use of artificial intelligence in medicine as positive or very positive, but only 4.77% negative or very negative. The respondents denied concerns about artificial intelligence, but strongly agreed that artificial intelligence must be controlled by a physician. Older patients, women, persons with lower education and technical affinity were more cautious on the healthcare-related artificial intelligence usage.ConclusionsGerman patients and their companions are open towards the usage of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Although showing only a mediocre knowledge about artificial intelligence, a majority rated artificial intelligence in healthcare as positive. Particularly, patients insist that a physician supervises the artificial intelligence and keeps ultimate responsibility for diagnosis and therapy.
Navigating the doctor-patient-AI relationship - a mixed-methods study of physician attitudes toward artificial intelligence in primary care

Matthew R Allen,Sophie Webb,Ammar Mandvi,Marshall Frieden,Ming Tai-Seale,Gene Kallenberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02282-y

2024-01-27

Abstract:Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly advancing field that is beginning to enter the practice of medicine. Primary care is a cornerstone of medicine and deals with challenges such as physician shortage and burnout which impact patient care. AI and its application via digital health is increasingly presented as a possible solution. However, there is a scarcity of research focusing on primary care physician (PCP) attitudes toward AI. This study examines PCP views on AI in primary care. We explore its potential impact on topics pertinent to primary care such as the doctor-patient relationship and clinical workflow. By doing so, we aim to inform primary care stakeholders to encourage successful, equitable uptake of future AI tools. Our study is the first to our knowledge to explore PCP attitudes using specific primary care AI use cases rather than discussing AI in medicine in general terms. Methods: From June to August 2023, we conducted a survey among 47 primary care physicians affiliated with a large academic health system in Southern California. The survey quantified attitudes toward AI in general as well as concerning two specific AI use cases. Additionally, we conducted interviews with 15 survey respondents. Results: Our findings suggest that PCPs have largely positive views of AI. However, attitudes often hinged on the context of adoption. While some concerns reported by PCPs regarding AI in primary care focused on technology (accuracy, safety, bias), many focused on people-and-process factors (workflow, equity, reimbursement, doctor-patient relationship). Conclusion: Our study offers nuanced insights into PCP attitudes towards AI in primary care and highlights the need for primary care stakeholder alignment on key issues raised by PCPs. AI initiatives that fail to address both the technological and people-and-process concerns raised by PCPs may struggle to make an impact.
Is My Doctor Human? Acceptance of AI among Patients with Breast Cancer

Nitzan Kenig,Aina Muntaner Vives,Javier Monton Echeverria

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000006257

2024-10-15

Abstract:Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly important in society, and medicine can benefit from its advantages. What scenario can we envision when AI becomes as powerful and accurate as human physicians? How will the traditional patient-doctor relationship be affected by AI? Will patients come to trust and accept AI-assisted healthcare as much as their human counterparts? Our research team has been working on applications of AI in plastic surgery for more than 4 years. Between 2020 and 2024, AI algorithms were developed by the authors and applied on patients for symmetry evaluation after breast cancer surgery. Patients were aware of being evaluated with images for AI model training and assessment. Feedback was reported, and a survey was carried out among patients who underwent evaluation by our team. Among patients with breast cancer who underwent surgical reconstruction, 65% of patients reported very high levels of comfort with AI, given that it was mediated by a human doctor. Patients stated that nondoctor-mediated AI in medicine would greatly reduce trust. The influence of AI on the patient-doctor relationship is an important aspect that will greatly affect medicine. In this preliminary work, patients showed high levels of trust and comfort with the use of AI in healthcare, despite stating that they knew little about AI. Patients insisted that the mediation of a human doctor is key for acceptance. Currently, little is known about the acceptance of AI in medical roles among patients.
Artificial Intelligence: Perceptions and Attitudes

Naveen Nathan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000006966

IF: 6.627

2024-04-17

Anesthesia & Analgesia

Abstract:Artificial intelligence technology and machine learning techniques are rapidly invoking their presence in healthcare. In clinical medicine, AI is already utilized in clinical diagnosis, risk stratification, treatment selection and patient monitoring. Additionally, biomedical research now exploits AI technology and leverages its unique advantages. Authors in this issue explored current physician anesthesiologists' attitudes towards the progress and use of AI in anesthetic practice. A cross-sectional survey of anesthesiologists was conducted and a summary of their findings is illustrated in this infographic. Several factors such as male gender, work experience greater than 20 years and familiarity with AI were associated with positive attitudes towards this technology. Understanding clinicians' perspectives on AI is crucial to its thoughtful adoption in clinical practice. The reader is strongly encouraged to review the cited article for a more thorough understanding of the illustrated concepts.

anesthesiology
Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Care: Content Analysis of Social Media

Shuqing Gao,Lingnan He,Yue Chen,Dan Li,Kaisheng Lai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/16649

IF: 7.076

2020-07-13

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Background High-quality medical resources are in high demand worldwide, and the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical care may help alleviate the crisis related to this shortage. The development of the medical AI industry depends to a certain extent on whether industry experts have a comprehensive understanding of the public’s views on medical AI. Currently, the opinions of the general public on this matter remain unclear. Objective The purpose of this study is to explore the public perception of AI in medical care through a content analysis of social media data, including specific topics that the public is concerned about; public attitudes toward AI in medical care and the reasons for them; and public opinion on whether AI can replace human doctors. Methods Through an application programming interface, we collected a data set from the Sina Weibo platform comprising more than 16 million users throughout China by crawling all public posts from January to December 2017. Based on this data set, we identified 2315 posts related to AI in medical care and classified them through content analysis. Results Among the 2315 identified posts, we found three types of AI topics discussed on the platform: (1) technology and application (n=987, 42.63%), (2) industry development (n=706, 30.50%), and (3) impact on society (n=622, 26.87%). Out of 956 posts where public attitudes were expressed, 59.4% (n=568), 34.4% (n=329), and 6.2% (n=59) of the posts expressed positive, neutral, and negative attitudes, respectively. The immaturity of AI technology (27/59, 46%) and a distrust of related companies (n=15, 25%) were the two main reasons for the negative attitudes. Across 200 posts that mentioned public attitudes toward replacing human doctors with AI, 47.5% (n=95) and 32.5% (n=65) of the posts expressed that AI would completely or partially replace human doctors, respectively. In comparison, 20.0% (n=40) of the posts expressed that AI would not replace human doctors. Conclusions Our findings indicate that people are most concerned about AI technology and applications. Generally, the majority of people held positive attitudes and believed that AI doctors would completely or partially replace human ones. Compared with previous studies on medical doctors, the general public has a more positive attitude toward medical AI. Lack of trust in AI and the absence of the humanistic care factor are essential reasons why some people still have a negative attitude toward medical AI. We suggest that practitioners may need to pay more attention to promoting the credibility of technology companies and meeting patients’ emotional needs instead of focusing merely on technical issues.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Readiness to Embrace Artificial Intelligence Among Medical Doctors and Students: Questionnaire-Based Study

Thomas Boillat,Faisal A Nawaz,Homero Rivas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/34973

2022-04-12

Abstract:Background: Similar to understanding how blood pressure is measured by a sphygmomanometer, physicians will soon have to understand how an artificial intelligence-based application has come to the conclusion that a patient has hypertension, diabetes, or cancer. Although there are an increasing number of use cases where artificial intelligence is or can be applied to improve medical outcomes, the extent to which medical doctors and students are ready to work and leverage this paradigm is unclear. Objective: This research aims to capture medical students' and doctors' level of familiarity toward artificial intelligence in medicine as well as their challenges, barriers, and potential risks linked to the democratization of this new paradigm. Methods: A web-based questionnaire comprising five dimensions-demographics, concepts and definitions, training and education, implementation, and risks-was systematically designed from a literature search. It was completed by 207 participants in total, of which 105 (50.7%) medical doctors and 102 (49.3%) medical students trained in all continents, with most of them in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and North America. Results: The results revealed no significant difference in the familiarity of artificial intelligence between medical doctors and students (P=.91), except that medical students perceived artificial intelligence in medicine to lead to higher risks for patients and the field of medicine in general (P<.001). We also identified a rather low level of familiarity with artificial intelligence (medical students=2.11/5; medical doctors=2.06/5) as well as a low attendance to education or training. Only 2.9% (3/105) of medical doctors attended a course on artificial intelligence within the previous year, compared with 9.8% (10/102) of medical students. The complexity of the field of medicine was considered one of the biggest challenges (medical doctors=3.5/5; medical students=3.8/5), whereas the reduction of physicians' skills was the most important risk (medical doctors=3.3; medical students=3.6; P=.03). Conclusions: The question is not whether artificial intelligence will be used in medicine, but when it will become a standard practice for optimizing health care. The low level of familiarity with artificial intelligence identified in this study calls for the implementation of specific education and training in medical schools and hospitals to ensure that medical professionals can leverage this new paradigm and improve health outcomes.
The Doctor-Patient Relationship With Artificial Intelligence.

Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri,Javier E López,Javier E. López

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20509

2019-10-04

American Journal of Roentgenology

Abstract:The doctor-patient relationship has been evolving from benevolent paternalism to a more patient-centered relationship in the modern era. Although artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve nearly every aspect of health care, many physicians are skeptical about integrating AI into their current medical practice. The purpose of this article is to explore what AI means for the doctor-patient relationship and for breast imaging radiologists.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Initial Investigations into Physician Acceptance of Medical AI: Examining Trust, Resistance, Perceived Job Insecurity, and Usage Intentions.

Chia-Jung Chen,Chung-Feng Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI240470

2024-08-22

Abstract:This study evaluated physicians' attitudes towards medical AI across three Taiwanese hospitals, focusing on constructs of trust, resistance, job insecurity, and adoption willingness, with a survey based on the Dual-factor Model yielding 282 responses and a 94% response rate. Results showed positive trust in AI, low resistance and job insecurity concerns, and a high willingness to adopt AI, indicating a favorable view of AI as a supportive tool rather than a replacement. Key adoption factors were identified as regulatory standards, accuracy, workflow integration, and result clarity, providing valuable insights for future AI development in medicine.

Computer Science,Medicine
Exploring perceptions of healthcare technologies enabled by artificial intelligence: an online, scenario-based survey

Alison L Antes,Sara Burrous,Bryan A Sisk,Matthew J Schuelke,Jason D Keune,James M DuBois

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01586-8

2021-07-20

Abstract:Background: Healthcare is expected to increasingly integrate technologies enabled by artificial intelligence (AI) into patient care. Understanding perceptions of these tools is essential to successful development and adoption. This exploratory study gauged participants' level of openness, concern, and perceived benefit associated with AI-driven healthcare technologies. We also explored socio-demographic, health-related, and psychosocial correlates of these perceptions. Methods: We developed a measure depicting six AI-driven technologies that either diagnose, predict, or suggest treatment. We administered the measure via an online survey to adults (N = 936) in the United States using MTurk, a crowdsourcing platform. Participants indicated their level of openness to using the AI technology in the healthcare scenario. Items reflecting potential concerns and benefits associated with each technology accompanied the scenarios. Participants rated the extent that the statements of concerns and benefits influenced their perception of favorability toward the technology. Participants completed measures of socio-demographics, health variables, and psychosocial variables such as trust in the healthcare system and trust in technology. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the concern and benefit items identified two factors representing overall level of concern and perceived benefit. Descriptive analyses examined levels of openness, concern, and perceived benefit. Correlational analyses explored associations of socio-demographic, health, and psychosocial variables with openness, concern, and benefit scores while multivariable regression models examined these relationships concurrently. Results: Participants were moderately open to AI-driven healthcare technologies (M = 3.1/5.0 ± 0.9), but there was variation depending on the type of application, and the statements of concerns and benefits swayed views. Trust in the healthcare system and trust in technology were the strongest, most consistent correlates of openness, concern, and perceived benefit. Most other socio-demographic, health-related, and psychosocial variables were less strongly, or not, associated, but multivariable models indicated some personality characteristics (e.g., conscientiousness and agreeableness) and socio-demographics (e.g., full-time employment, age, sex, and race) were modestly related to perceptions. Conclusions: Participants' openness appears tenuous, suggesting early promotion strategies and experiences with novel AI technologies may strongly influence views, especially if implementation of AI technologies increases or undermines trust. The exploratory nature of these findings warrants additional research.
Physicians' Attitudes Towards Artificial Intelligence: Results of the PEAK Project

Sarah Negash,Jana Gundlack,Charlotte Buch,Timo Apfelbacher,Jan Christoph,Jan Schildmann,Thomas Frese,Rafael Mikolajczyk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI240501

2024-08-22

Abstract:Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping the medical field. This study aimed to investigate the attitudes of physicians towards AI in medical care using focus groups. Most participants seemed to be open to the use of AI in medicine if transparency in AI systems is ensured, regulatory barriers are addressed and personal contact to the patient is maintained. This qualitative study allows insights into how German physicians perceive the use of AI in medical care. Gaining input from physicians is important when designing future applications of AI for the practical use in medical care.
Perceptions and attitudes toward artificial intelligence among frontline physicians and physicians' assistants in Kansas: a cross-sectional survey

Tanner B Dean,Rajeev Seecheran,Robert G Badgett,Rosey Zackula,John Symons

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae100

2024-10-07

JAMIA Open

Abstract:Objective: This survey aims to understand frontline healthcare professionals' perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare and assess how AI familiarity influences these perceptions. Materials and methods: We conducted a survey from February to March 2023 of physicians and physician assistants registered with the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts. Participants rated their perceptions toward AI-related domains and constructs on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating stronger agreement. Two sub-groups were created for analysis to assess the impact of participants' familiarity and experience with AI on the survey results. Results: From 532 respondents, key concerns were Perceived Communication Barriers (median = 4.0, IQR = 2.8-4.8), Unregulated Standards (median = 4.0, IQR = 3.6-4.8), and Liability Issues (median = 4.0, IQR = 3.5-4.8). Lower levels of agreement were noted for Trust in AI Mechanisms (median = 3.0, IQR = 2.2-3.4), Perceived Risks of AI (median = 3.2, IQR = 2.6-4.0), and Privacy Concerns (median = 3.3, IQR = 2.3-4.0). Positive correlations existed between Intention to use AI and Perceived Benefits (r = 0.825) and Trust in AI Mechanisms (r = 0.777). Perceived risk negatively correlated with Intention to Use AI (r = -0.718). There was no difference in perceptions between AI experienced and AI naïve subgroups. Discussion: The findings suggest that perceptions of benefits, trust, risks, communication barriers, regulation, and liability issues influence healthcare professionals' intention to use AI, regardless of their AI familiarity. Conclusion: The study highlights key factors affecting AI adoption in healthcare from the frontline healthcare professionals' perspective. These insights can guide strategies for successful AI implementation in healthcare.
Could artificial intelligence make human doctors obsolete? A survey based on public attitudes

Y Y Chen,Y Li,C J Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa166.040

2020-09-01

European Journal of Public Health

Abstract:Abstract Background With the outbreak of pandemics such as SARS, MERS and COVID-19 etc., making full use of artificial intelligence (AI) become the focus of social discussion. Some experts think AI can reduce infection probability of medical staffs and improve medical efficiency, while opponents believe AI will increase unemployment and medical ethical crises. We try to answer the question: From public perspective, could AI replace human doctors? Methods According to occupational status and biological gender, we select four groups as respondents: on-job and retired men, on-job and retired women. We investigate their attitudes towards AI application in medical field. After collecting 400 anonymous questionnaires, we use sample statistics, ANOVA and cluster method (CFSFDP) to find out cognitive similarities and differences between different groups. Results Reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficient) and validity (KMO test) of questionnaires are 0.740 and 0.875 respectively. To the four groups, there are significant (p < 0.01) differences in answers of 7 questions but non-significant differences in the remaining 3 questions. By CFSFDP, questionnaires are automatically grouped into two clusters. Largest group in two clusters are on-job women and on-job men, respectively. Although 82.5% of respondents pay attention to news about AI, the overall average score for “public attitude to AI application in medical field” is 2.828 (full-score is 5.000), below neutral-score (3.000). Conclusions To AI application in medical field, cognitive differences among different groups are in existence, especially between on-job men and women. But in general, the public held a negative attitude towards the AI application in medical field, and trust human doctors more. Key messages According to the survey, it seems that AI is lesser probability to replace human doctors in recent years. It is also necessary to consider the public attitudes when promoting medical AI.

public, environmental & occupational health
Doctor AI? A pilot study examining responses of artificial intelligence to common questions asked by geriatric patients

Ian Moore,Christopher Magnante,Ellie Embry,Jennifer Mathis,Scott Mooney,Shereen Haj-Hassan,Maria Cottingham,Prasad R. Padala

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1438012

2024-07-25

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence

Abstract:Introduction AI technologies have the potential to transform patient care. AI has been used to aid in differential diagnosis and treatment planning for psychiatric disorders, administer therapeutic protocols, assist with interpretation of cognitive testing, and patient treatment planning. Despite advancements, AI has notable limitations and remains understudied and further research on its strengths and limitations in patient care is required. This study explored the responses of AI (Chat-GPT 3.5) and trained clinicians to commonly asked patient questions. Methods Three clinicians and AI provided responses to five dementia/geriatric healthcare-related questions. Responses were analyzed by a fourth, blinded clinician for clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, and ease of understanding and to determine which response was AI generated. Results AI responses were rated highest in ease of understanding and depth across all responses and tied for first for clarity, accuracy, and relevance. The rating for AI generated responses was 4.6/5 (SD = 0.26); the clinician s' responses were 4.3 (SD = 0.67), 4.2 (SD = 0.52), and 3.9 (SD = 0.59), respectively. The AI generated answers were identified in 4/5 instances. Conclusions AI responses were rated more highly and consistently on each question individually and overall than clinician answers demonstrating that AI could produce good responses to potential patient questions. However, AI responses were easily distinguishable from those of clinicians. Although AI has the potential to positively impact healthcare, concerns are raised regarding difficulties discerning AI from human generated material, the increased potential for proliferation of misinformation, data security concerns, and more.
Are physicians and medical students ready for artificial intelligence applications in healthcare?

Adhari AlZaabi,Saleh AlMaskari,Abdulrahman AalAbdulsalam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076231152167

2023-01-01

Digital Health

Abstract:Background Artificial intelligence (AI) Healthcare applications are listed in the national visions of some Gulf Cooperation Council countries. A successful use of AI depends on the attitude and perception of medical experts of its applications. Objective To evaluate physicians and medical students’ attitude and perception on AI applications in healthcare. Method A web-based survey was disseminated by email to physicians and medical students. Results A total of 293 (82 physicians and 211 medical students) individuals have participated (response rate is 27%). Seven participants (9%) reported knowing nothing about AI, while 208 (69%) were aware that it is an emerging field and would like to learn about it. Concerns about AI impact on physicians’ employability were not prominent. Instead, the majority (n=159) agreed that new positions will be created and the job market for those who embrace AI will increase. They reported willingness to adapt AI in practice if it was incorporated in international guidelines (30.5%), published in respected scientific journals (17.1%), or included in formal training (12.2%). Almost two of the three participants agreed that dedicated courses will help them to implement AI. The most commonly reported problem of AI is its inability to provide opinions in unexpected scenarios. Half of the participants think that both the manufacturer and physicians should be legally liable for medical errors occur due to AI-based decision support tools while more than one-third (36.77%) think that physicians who make the final decision should be legally liable. Senior physicians were found to be less familiar with AI and more concerned about physicians’ legal liability in case of a medical error. Conclusion Physicians and medical students showed positive attitudes and willingness to learn about AI applications in healthcare. Introducing AI learning objectives or short courses in medical curriculum would help to equip physicians with the needed skills for AI-augmented healthcare system.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,medical informatics,health policy & services
Multi-stakeholder preferences for the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A systematic review and thematic analysis

Vinh Vo,Gang Chen,Yves Saint James Aquino,Stacy M Carter,Quynh Nga Do,Maame Esi Woode

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116357

Abstract:Introduction: Despite the proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology over the last decade, clinician, patient, and public perceptions of its use in healthcare raise a number of ethical, legal and social questions. We systematically review the literature on attitudes towards the use of AI in healthcare from patients, the general public and health professionals' perspectives to understand these issues from multiple perspectives. Methodology: A search for original research articles using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods published between 1 Jan 2001 to 24 Aug 2021 was conducted on six bibliographic databases. Data were extracted and classified into different themes representing views on: (i) knowledge and familiarity of AI, (ii) AI benefits, risks, and challenges, (iii) AI acceptability, (iv) AI development, (v) AI implementation, (vi) AI regulations, and (vii) Human - AI relationship. Results: The final search identified 7,490 different records of which 105 publications were selected based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. While the majority of patients, the general public and health professionals generally had a positive attitude towards the use of AI in healthcare, all groups indicated some perceived risks and challenges. Commonly perceived risks included data privacy; reduced professional autonomy; algorithmic bias; healthcare inequities; and greater burnout to acquire AI-related skills. While patients had mixed opinions on whether healthcare workers suffer from job loss due to the use of AI, health professionals strongly indicated that AI would not be able to completely replace them in their professions. Both groups shared similar doubts about AI's ability to deliver empathic care. The need for AI validation, transparency, explainability, and patient and clinical involvement in the development of AI was emphasised. To help successfully implement AI in health care, most participants envisioned that an investment in training and education campaigns was necessary, especially for health professionals. Lack of familiarity, lack of trust, and regulatory uncertainties were identified as factors hindering AI implementation. Regarding AI regulations, key themes included data access and data privacy. While the general public and patients exhibited a willingness to share anonymised data for AI development, there remained concerns about sharing data with insurance or technology companies. One key domain under this theme was the question of who should be held accountable in the case of adverse events arising from using AI. Conclusions: While overall positivity persists in attitudes and preferences toward AI use in healthcare, some prevalent problems require more attention. There is a need to go beyond addressing algorithm-related issues to look at the translation of legislation and guidelines into practice to ensure fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in AI.

Patient attitudes toward the AI doctor

Public perceptions of artificial intelligence in healthcare: ethical concerns and opportunities for patient-centered care

Patient Perspectives on AI for Mental Health Care: Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Acceptance of clinical artificial intelligence among physicians and medical students: A systematic review with cross-sectional survey

Patients' Perceptions Toward Human-Artificial Intelligence Interaction in Health Care: Experimental Study

Multinational attitudes towards AI in healthcare and diagnostics among hospital patients

Attitudes and perception of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A cross-sectional survey among patients

Navigating the doctor-patient-AI relationship - a mixed-methods study of physician attitudes toward artificial intelligence in primary care

Is My Doctor Human? Acceptance of AI among Patients with Breast Cancer

Artificial Intelligence: Perceptions and Attitudes

Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Care: Content Analysis of Social Media

Readiness to Embrace Artificial Intelligence Among Medical Doctors and Students: Questionnaire-Based Study

The Doctor-Patient Relationship With Artificial Intelligence.

Initial Investigations into Physician Acceptance of Medical AI: Examining Trust, Resistance, Perceived Job Insecurity, and Usage Intentions.

Exploring perceptions of healthcare technologies enabled by artificial intelligence: an online, scenario-based survey

Physicians' Attitudes Towards Artificial Intelligence: Results of the PEAK Project

Perceptions and attitudes toward artificial intelligence among frontline physicians and physicians' assistants in Kansas: a cross-sectional survey

Could artificial intelligence make human doctors obsolete? A survey based on public attitudes

Doctor AI? A pilot study examining responses of artificial intelligence to common questions asked by geriatric patients

Are physicians and medical students ready for artificial intelligence applications in healthcare?

Multi-stakeholder preferences for the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A systematic review and thematic analysis