Artificial Intelligence in Primary Health Care: Perceptions, Issues, and Challenges.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Artificial intelligence (AI) is heralded as an approach that might augment or substitute for the limited processing power of the human brain of primary health care (PHC) professionals. However, there are concerns that AI-mediated decisions may be hard to validate and challenge, or may result in rogue decisions.Objective
To form consensus about perceptions, issues, and challenges of AI in primary care.Method
A three-round Delphi study was conducted. Round 1 explored experts' viewpoints on AI in PHC (n=20). Round 2 rated the appropriateness of statements arising from round one (n=12). The third round was an online panel discussion of findings (n=8) with the members of both the International Medical Informatics Association and the European Federation of Medical Informatics Primary Health Care Informatics Working Groups.Results
PHC and informatics experts reported AI has potential to improve managerial and clinical decisions and processes, and this would be facilitated by common data standards. The respondents did not agree that AI applications should learn and adapt to clinician preferences or behaviour and they did not agree on the extent of AI potential for harm to patients. It was more difficult to assess the impact of AI-based applications on continuity and coordination of care.Conclusion
While the use of AI in medicine should enhance healthcare delivery, we need to ensure meticulous design and evaluation of AI applications. The primary care informatics community needs to be proactive and to guide the ethical and rigorous development of AI applications so that they will be safe and effective.
SUBMITTER: Liyanage H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6697547 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Artificial Intelligence in Primary Health Care: Perceptions, Issues, and Challenges.
Liyanage Harshana H Liaw Siaw-Teng ST Jonnagaddala Jitendra J Schreiber Richard R Kuziemsky Craig C Terry Amanda L AL de Lusignan Simon S
Yearbook of medical informatics 20190425 1
<h4>Background</h4>Artificial intelligence (AI) is heralded as an approach that might augment or substitute for the limited processing power of the human brain of primary health care (PHC) professionals. However, there are concerns that AI-mediated decisions may be hard to validate and challenge, or may result in rogue decisions.<h4>Objective</h4>To form consensus about perceptions, issues, and challenges of AI in primary care.<h4>Method</h4>A three-round Delphi study was conducted. Round 1 expl ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIt 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC8663518 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of health care service delivery. However, the perceptions and needs of such systems remain elusive, hindering efforts to promote AI adoption in health care.ObjectiveThis study aims to provide an overview of the perceptions and needs of AI to increase its adoption in health care.MethodsA systematic scoping review was conducted according to the 5-stage framework by Arksey and O'Malley. Articles that described the perceptions and needs of AI in health care were searched across nine databases: ACM Library, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, IEEE Xplore, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies that were published from inception until June 21, 2021. Articles that were not specific to AI, not research studies, and not written in English were omitted.ResultsOf the 3666 articles retrieved, 26 (0.71%) were eligible and included in this review. The mean age of the participants ranged from 30 to 72.6 years, the proportion of men ranged from 0% to 73.4%, and the sample sizes for primary studies ranged from 11 to 2780. The perceptions and needs of various populations in the use of AI were identified for general, primary, and community health care; chronic diseases self-management and self-diagnosis; mental health; and diagnostic procedures. The use of AI was perceived to be positive because of its availability, ease of use, and potential to improve efficiency and reduce the cost of health care service delivery. However, concerns were raised regarding the lack of trust in data privacy, patient safety, technological maturity, and the possibility of full automation. Suggestions for improving the adoption of AI in health care were highlighted: enhancing personalization and customizability; enhancing empathy and personification of AI-enabled chatbots and avatars; enhancing user experience, design, and interconnectedness with other devices; and educating the public on AI capabilities. Several corresponding mitigation strategies were also identified in this study.ConclusionsThe perceptions and needs of AI in its use in health care are crucial in improving its adoption by various stakeholders. Future studies and implementations should consider the points highlighted in this study to enhance the acceptability and adoption of AI in health care. This would facilitate an increase in the effectiveness and efficiency of health care service delivery to improve patient outcomes and satisfaction.
| S-EPMC8800095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs a critical driving power to promote health care, the health care-related artificial intelligence (AI) literature is growing rapidly.ObjectiveThe purpose of this analysis is to provide a dynamic and longitudinal bibliometric analysis of health care-related AI publications.MethodsThe Web of Science (Clarivate PLC) was searched to retrieve all existing and highly cited AI-related health care research papers published in English up to December 2019. Based on bibliometric indicators, a search strategy was developed to screen the title for eligibility, using the abstract and full text where needed. The growth rate of publications, characteristics of research activities, publication patterns, and research hotspot tendencies were computed using the HistCite software.ResultsThe search identified 5235 hits, of which 1473 publications were included in the analyses. Publication output increased an average of 17.02% per year since 1995, but the growth rate of research papers significantly increased to 45.15% from 2014 to 2019. The major health problems studied in AI research are cancer, depression, Alzheimer disease, heart failure, and diabetes. Artificial neural networks, support vector machines, and convolutional neural networks have the highest impact on health care. Nucleosides, convolutional neural networks, and tumor markers have remained research hotspots through 2019.ConclusionsThis analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the AI-related research conducted in the field of health care, which helps researchers, policy makers, and practitioners better understand the development of health care-related AI research and possible practice implications. Future AI research should be dedicated to filling in the gaps between AI health care research and clinical applications.
| S-EPMC7424481 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConsiderable research is being conducted as to how artificial intelligence (AI) can be effectively applied to health care. However, for the successful implementation of AI, large amounts of health data are required for training and testing algorithms. As such, there is a need to understand the perspectives and viewpoints of patients regarding the use of their health data in AI research.ObjectiveWe surveyed a large sample of patients for identifying current awareness regarding health data research, and for obtaining their opinions and views on data sharing for AI research purposes, and on the use of AI technology on health care data.MethodsA cross-sectional survey with patients was conducted at a large multisite teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Data were collected on patient and public views about sharing health data for research and the use of AI on health data.ResultsA total of 408 participants completed the survey. The respondents had generally low levels of prior knowledge about AI. Most were comfortable with sharing health data with the National Health Service (NHS) (318/408, 77.9%) or universities (268/408, 65.7%), but far fewer with commercial organizations such as technology companies (108/408, 26.4%). The majority endorsed AI research on health care data (357/408, 87.4%) and health care imaging (353/408, 86.4%) in a university setting, provided that concerns about privacy, reidentification of anonymized health care data, and consent processes were addressed.ConclusionsThere were significant variations in the patient perceptions, levels of support, and understanding of health data research and AI. Greater public engagement levels and debates are necessary to ensure the acceptability of AI research and its successful integration into clinical practice in future.
| S-EPMC8430862 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being proposed for use in medicine, including breast cancer screening (BCS). Little is known, however, about referring primary care providers' (PCPs') preferences for this technology.MethodsWe identified the most important attributes of AI BCS for ordering PCPs using qualitative interviews: sensitivity, specificity, radiologist involvement, understandability of AI decision-making, supporting evidence, and diversity of training data. We invited US-based PCPs to participate in an internet-based experiment designed to force participants to trade off among the attributes of hypothetical AI BCS products. Responses were analyzed with random parameters logit and latent class models to assess how different attributes affect the choice to recommend AI-enhanced screening.ResultsNinety-one PCPs participated. Sensitivity was most important, and most PCPs viewed radiologist participation in mammography interpretation as important. Other important attributes were specificity, understandability of AI decision-making, and diversity of data. We identified 3 classes of respondents: "Sensitivity First" (41%) found sensitivity to be more than twice as important as other attributes; "Against AI Autonomy" (24%) wanted radiologists to confirm every image; "Uncertain Trade-Offs" (35%) viewed most attributes as having similar importance. A majority (76%) accepted the use of AI in a "triage" role that would allow it to filter out likely negatives without radiologist confirmation.Conclusions and relevanceSensitivity was the most important attribute overall, but other key attributes should be addressed to produce clinically acceptable products. We also found that most PCPs accept the use of AI to make determinations about likely negative mammograms without radiologist confirmation.
| S-EPMC8200265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch on the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into community-based primary health care (CBPHC) has highlighted several advantages and disadvantages in practice regarding, for example, facilitating diagnosis and disease management, as well as doubts concerning the unintended harmful effects of this integration. However, there is a lack of evidence about a comprehensive knowledge synthesis that could shed light on AI systems tested or implemented in CBPHC.ObjectiveWe intended to identify and evaluate published studies that have tested or implemented AI in CBPHC settings.MethodsWe conducted a systematic scoping review informed by an earlier study and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review framework and reported the findings according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Scoping Reviews) reporting guidelines. An information specialist performed a comprehensive search from the date of inception until February 2020, in seven bibliographic databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore. The selected studies considered all populations who provide and receive care in CBPHC settings, AI interventions that had been implemented, tested, or both, and assessed outcomes related to patients, health care providers, or CBPHC systems. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the identified records, read the selected full texts, and extracted data from the included studies using a validated extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought. A third reviewer also validated all the extracted data.ResultsWe retrieved 22,113 documents. After the removal of duplicates, 16,870 documents were screened, and 90 peer-reviewed publications met our inclusion criteria. Machine learning (ML) (41/90, 45%), natural language processing (NLP) (24/90, 27%), and expert systems (17/90, 19%) were the most commonly studied AI interventions. These were primarily implemented for diagnosis, detection, or surveillance purposes. Neural networks (ie, convolutional neural networks and abductive networks) demonstrated the highest accuracy, considering the given database for the given clinical task. The risk of bias in diagnosis or prognosis studies was the lowest in the participant category (4/49, 4%) and the highest in the outcome category (22/49, 45%).ConclusionsWe observed variabilities in reporting the participants, types of AI methods, analyses, and outcomes, and highlighted the large gap in the effective development and implementation of AI in CBPHC. Further studies are needed to efficiently guide the development and implementation of AI interventions in CBPHC settings.
| S-EPMC8449300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe changing landscape of health care has led to the incorporation of powerful new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) to assist with various services across a hospital. However, despite the potential outcomes that this tool may provide, little work has examined public opinion regarding their use.ObjectiveIn this study, we aim to explore differences between younger versus older Canadians with regard to the level of comfort and perceptions around the adoption and use of AI in health care settings.MethodsUsing data from the 2021 Canadian Digital Health Survey (n=12,052), items related to perceptions about the use of AI as well as previous experience and satisfaction with health care were identified. We conducted Mann-Whitney U tests to compare the level of comfort of younger versus older Canadians regarding the use of AI in health care for a variety of purposes. Multinomial logistic regression was used to predict the comfort ratings based on categorical indicators.ResultsYounger Canadians had greater knowledge of AI, but older Canadians were more comfortable with AI applied to monitoring and predicting health conditions, decision support, diagnostic imaging, precision medicine, drug and vaccine development, disease monitoring at home, tracking epidemics, and optimizing workflow to save time. Additionally, for older respondents, higher satisfaction led to higher comfort ratings. Only 1 interaction effect was identified between previous experience, satisfaction, and comfort with AI for drug and vaccine development.ConclusionsOlder Canadians may be more open to various applications of AI within health care than younger Canadians. High satisfaction may be a critical criterion for comfort with AI, especially for older Canadians. Additionally, in the case of drug and vaccine development, previous experience may be an important moderating factor. We conclude that gaining a greater understanding of the perceptions of all health care users is integral to the implementation and sustainability of new and cutting-edge technologies in health care settings.
| S-EPMC10182456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care increases, it will become increasingly crucial to involve health care professionals (HCPs) in developing, validating, and implementing AI-enabled technologies. However, because of a lack of AI literacy, most HCPs are not adequately prepared for this revolution. This is a significant barrier to adopting and implementing AI that will affect patients. In addition, the limited existing AI education programs face barriers to development and implementation at various levels of medical education.ObjectiveWith a view to informing future AI education programs for HCPs, this scoping review aims to provide an overview of the types of current or past AI education programs that pertains to the programs' curricular content, modes of delivery, critical implementation factors for education delivery, and outcomes used to assess the programs' effectiveness.MethodsAfter the creation of a search strategy and keyword searches, a 2-stage screening process was conducted by 2 independent reviewers to determine study eligibility. When consensus was not reached, the conflict was resolved by consulting a third reviewer. This process consisted of a title and abstract scan and a full-text review. The articles were included if they discussed an actual training program or educational intervention, or a potential training program or educational intervention and the desired content to be covered, focused on AI, and were designed or intended for HCPs (at any stage of their career).ResultsOf the 10,094 unique citations scanned, 41 (0.41%) studies relevant to our eligibility criteria were identified. Among the 41 included studies, 10 (24%) described 13 unique programs and 31 (76%) discussed recommended curricular content. The curricular content of the unique programs ranged from AI use, AI interpretation, and cultivating skills to explain results derived from AI algorithms. The curricular topics were categorized into three main domains: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective.ConclusionsThis review provides an overview of the current landscape of AI in medical education and highlights the skills and competencies required by HCPs to effectively use AI in enhancing the quality of care and optimizing patient outcomes. Future education efforts should focus on the development of regulatory strategies, a multidisciplinary approach to curriculum redesign, a competency-based curriculum, and patient-clinician interaction.
| S-EPMC8713099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)-driven serious games have been used in health care to offer a customizable and immersive experience. Summarizing the features of the current AI-driven serious games is very important to explore how they have been developed and used and their current state to plan on how to leverage them in the current and future health care needs.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the features of AI-driven serious games in health care as reported by previous research.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to achieve the abovementioned objective. The most popular databases in the information technology and health fields (ie, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and Google Scholar) were searched using keywords related to serious games and AI. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection process. Three reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies. A narrative approach was used for data synthesis.ResultsThe search process returned 1470 records. Of these 1470 records, 46 (31.29%) met all eligibility criteria. A total of 64 different serious games were found in the included studies. Motor impairment was the most common health condition targeted by these serious games. Serious games were used for rehabilitation in most of the studies. The most common genres of serious games were role-playing games, puzzle games, and platform games. Unity was the most prominent game engine used to develop serious games. PCs were the most common platform used to play serious games. The most common algorithm used in the included studies was support vector machine. The most common purposes of AI were the detection of disease and the evaluation of user performance. The size of the data set ranged from 36 to 795,600. The most common validation techniques used in the included studies were k-fold cross-validation and training-test split validation. Accuracy was the most commonly used metric for evaluating the performance of AI models.ConclusionsThe last decade witnessed an increase in the development of AI-driven serious games for health care purposes, targeting various health conditions, and leveraging multiple AI algorithms; this rising trend is expected to continue for years to come. Although the evidence uncovered in this study shows promising applications of AI-driven serious games, larger and more rigorous, diverse, and robust studies may be needed to examine the efficacy and effectiveness of AI-driven serious games in different populations with different health conditions.
| S-EPMC9748798 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In-stent restenosis concerning the coronary artery refers to the blood clotting-caused re-narrowing of the blocked section of the artery, which is opened using a stent. The failure rate for stents is in the range of 10% to 15%, where they do not remain open, thereby leading to about 40% of the patients with stent implantations requiring repeat procedure within one year, despite increased risk factors and the administration of expensive medicines. Hence, today stent restenosis is a significant cause of deaths globally. Monitoring and treatment matter a lot when it comes to early diagnosis and treatment. A review of the present stent monitoring technology as well as the practical treatment for addressing stent restenosis was conducted. The problems and challenges associated with current stent monitoring technology were illustrated, along with its typical applications. Brief suggestions were given and the progress of stent implants was discussed. It was revealed that prime requisites are needed to achieve good quality implanted stent devices in terms of their size, reliability, etc. This review would positively prompt researchers to augment their efforts towards the expansion of healthcare systems. Lastly, the challenges and concerns associated with nurturing a healthcare system were deliberated with meaningful evaluations.
| S-EPMC7435700 | biostudies-literature