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: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: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:BACKGROUND:Positive economic impact is a key decision factor in making the case for or against investing in an artificial intelligence (AI) solution in the health care industry. It is most relevant for the care provider and insurer as well as for the pharmaceutical and medical technology sectors. Although the broad economic impact of digital health solutions in general has been assessed many times in literature and the benefit for patients and society has also been analyzed, the specific economic impact of AI in health care has been addressed only sporadically. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to systematically review and summarize the cost-effectiveness studies dedicated to AI in health care and to assess whether they meet the established quality criteria. METHODS:In a first step, the quality criteria for economic impact studies were defined based on the established and adapted criteria schemes for cost impact assessments. In a second step, a systematic literature review based on qualitative and quantitative inclusion and exclusion criteria was conducted to identify relevant publications for an in-depth analysis of the economic impact assessment. In a final step, the quality of the identified economic impact studies was evaluated based on the defined quality criteria for cost-effectiveness studies. RESULTS:Very few publications have thoroughly addressed the economic impact assessment, and the economic assessment quality of the reviewed publications on AI shows severe methodological deficits. Only 6 out of 66 publications could be included in the second step of the analysis based on the inclusion criteria. Out of these 6 studies, none comprised a methodologically complete cost impact analysis. There are two areas for improvement in future studies. First, the initial investment and operational costs for the AI infrastructure and service need to be included. Second, alternatives to achieve similar impact must be evaluated to provide a comprehensive comparison. CONCLUSIONS:This systematic literature analysis proved that the existing impact assessments show methodological deficits and that upcoming evaluations require more comprehensive economic analyses to enable economic decisions for or against implementing AI technology in health care.
| S-EPMC7059082 | 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
Project description:Skin cancer is currently the most common type of cancer among Caucasians. The increase in life expectancy, along with new diagnostic tools and treatments for skin cancer, has resulted in unprecedented changes in patient care and has generated a great burden on healthcare systems. Early detection of skin tumors is expected to reduce this burden. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that support skin cancer diagnoses have been shown to perform at least as well as dermatologists' diagnoses. Recognizing the need for clinically and economically efficient means of diagnosing skin cancers at early stages in the primary care attention, we developed an efficient computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system to be used by primary care physicians (PCP). Additionally, we developed a smartphone application with a protocol for data acquisition (i.e., photographs, demographic data and short clinical histories) and AI algorithms for clinical and dermoscopic image classification. For each lesion analyzed, a report is generated, showing the image of the suspected lesion and its respective Heat Map; the predicted probability of the suspected lesion being melanoma or malignant; the probable diagnosis based on that probability; and a suggestion on how the lesion should be managed. The accuracy of the dermoscopy model for melanoma was 89.3%, and for the clinical model, 84.7% with 0.91 and 0.89 sensitivity and 0.89 and 0.83 specificity, respectively. Both models achieved an area under the curve (AUC) above 0.9. Our CAD system can screen skin cancers to guide lesion management by PCPs, especially in the contexts where the access to the dermatologist can be difficult or time consuming. Its use can enable risk stratification of lesions and/or patients and dramatically improve timely access to specialist care for those requiring urgent attention.
| S-EPMC8457457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe high demand for health care services and the growing capability of artificial intelligence have led to the development of conversational agents designed to support a variety of health-related activities, including behavior change, treatment support, health monitoring, training, triage, and screening support. Automation of these tasks could free clinicians to focus on more complex work and increase the accessibility to health care services for the public. An overarching assessment of the acceptability, usability, and effectiveness of these agents in health care is needed to collate the evidence so that future development can target areas for improvement and potential for sustainable adoption.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness and usability of conversational agents in health care and identify the elements that users like and dislike to inform future research and development of these agents.MethodsPubMed, Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science, and the Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library were systematically searched for articles published since 2008 that evaluated unconstrained natural language processing conversational agents used in health care. EndNote (version X9, Clarivate Analytics) reference management software was used for initial screening, and full-text screening was conducted by 1 reviewer. Data were extracted, and the risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and validated by another.ResultsA total of 31 studies were selected and included a variety of conversational agents, including 14 chatbots (2 of which were voice chatbots), 6 embodied conversational agents (3 of which were interactive voice response calls, virtual patients, and speech recognition screening systems), 1 contextual question-answering agent, and 1 voice recognition triage system. Overall, the evidence reported was mostly positive or mixed. Usability and satisfaction performed well (27/30 and 26/31), and positive or mixed effectiveness was found in three-quarters of the studies (23/30). However, there were several limitations of the agents highlighted in specific qualitative feedback.ConclusionsThe studies generally reported positive or mixed evidence for the effectiveness, usability, and satisfactoriness of the conversational agents investigated, but qualitative user perceptions were more mixed. The quality of many of the studies was limited, and improved study design and reporting are necessary to more accurately evaluate the usefulness of the agents in health care and identify key areas for improvement. Further research should also analyze the cost-effectiveness, privacy, and security of the agents.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/16934.
| S-EPMC7644372 | biostudies-literature