Public vs physician views of liability for artificial intelligence in health care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Khullar D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8279784 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Public vs physician views of liability for artificial intelligence in health care.
Khullar Dhruv D Casalino Lawrence P LP Qian Yuting Y Lu Yuan Y Chang Enoch E Aneja Sanjay S
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20210701 7
The growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care has raised questions about who should be held liable for medical errors that result from care delivered jointly by physicians and algorithms. In this survey study comparing views of physicians and the U.S. public, we find that the public is significantly more likely to believe that physicians should be held responsible when an error occurs during care delivered with medical AI, though the majority of both physicians and the public ho ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMental disorders (MDs) impose heavy burdens on health care (HC) systems and affect a growing number of people worldwide. The use of mobile health (mHealth) apps empowered by artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being resorted to as a possible solution.ObjectiveThis study adopted a topic modeling (TM) approach to investigate the public trust in AI apps in mental health care (MHC) by identifying the dominant topics and themes in user reviews of the 8 most relevant mental health (MH) apps with the largest numbers of reviewers.MethodsWe searched Google Play for the top MH apps with the largest numbers of reviewers, from which we selected the most relevant apps. Subsequently, we extracted data from user reviews posted from January 1, 2020, to April 2, 2022. After cleaning the extracted data using the Python text processing tool spaCy, we ascertained the optimal number of topics, drawing on the coherence scores and used latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) TM to generate the most salient topics and related terms. We then classified the ascertained topics into different theme categories by plotting them onto a 2D plane via multidimensional scaling using the pyLDAvis visualization tool. Finally, we analyzed these topics and themes qualitatively to better understand the status of public trust in AI apps in MHC.ResultsFrom the top 20 MH apps with the largest numbers of reviewers retrieved, we chose the 8 (40%) most relevant apps: (1) Wysa: Anxiety Therapy Chatbot; (2) Youper Therapy; (3) MindDoc: Your Companion; (4) TalkLife for Anxiety, Depression & Stress; (5) 7 Cups: Online Therapy for Mental Health & Anxiety; (6) BetterHelp-Therapy; (7) Sanvello; and (8) InnerHour. These apps provided 14.2% (n=559), 11.0% (n=431), 13.7% (n=538), 8.8% (n=356), 14.1% (n=554), 11.9% (n=468), 9.2% (n=362), and 16.9% (n=663) of the collected 3931 reviews, respectively. The 4 dominant topics were topic 4 (cheering people up; n=1069, 27%), topic 3 (calming people down; n=1029, 26%), topic 2 (helping figure out the inner world; n=963, 25%), and topic 1 (being an alternative or complement to a therapist; n=870, 22%). Based on topic coherence and intertopic distance, topics 3 and 4 were combined into theme 3 (dispelling negative emotions), while topics 2 and 1 remained 2 separate themes: theme 2 (helping figure out the inner world) and theme 1 (being an alternative or complement to a therapist), respectively. These themes and topics, though involving some dissenting voices, reflected an overall high status of trust in AI apps.ConclusionsThis is the first study to investigate the public trust in AI apps in MHC from the perspective of user reviews using the TM technique. The automatic text analysis and complementary manual interpretation of the collected data allowed us to discover the dominant topics hidden in a data set and categorize these topics into different themes to reveal an overall high degree of public trust. The dissenting voices from users, though only a few, can serve as indicators for health providers and app developers to jointly improve these apps, which will ultimately facilitate the treatment of prevalent MDs and alleviate the overburdened HC systems worldwide.
| S-EPMC9758643 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10248742 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, innovations in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the development of new healthcare AI (HCAI) technologies. Whilst some of these technologies show promise for improving the patient experience, ethicists have warned that AI can introduce and exacerbate harms and wrongs in healthcare. It is important that HCAI reflects the values that are important to people. However, involving patients and publics in research about AI ethics remains challenging due to relatively limited awareness of HCAI technologies. This scoping review aims to map how the existing literature on publics' views on HCAI addresses key issues in AI ethics and governance.MethodsWe developed a search query to conduct a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Academic Search Complete from January 2010 onwards. We will include primary research studies which document publics' or patients' views on machine learning HCAI technologies. A coding framework has been designed and will be used capture qualitative and quantitative data from the articles. Two reviewers will code a proportion of the included articles and any discrepancies will be discussed amongst the team, with changes made to the coding framework accordingly. Final results will be reported quantitatively and qualitatively, examining how each AI ethics issue has been addressed by the included studies.DiscussionConsulting publics and patients about the ethics of HCAI technologies and innovations can offer important insights to those seeking to implement HCAI ethically and legitimately. This review will explore how ethical issues are addressed in literature examining publics' and patients' views on HCAI, with the aim of determining the extent to which publics' views on HCAI ethics have been addressed in existing research. This has the potential to support the development of implementation processes and regulation for HCAI that incorporates publics' values and perspectives.
| S-EPMC9288036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis paper reviews nationally representative public opinion surveys on artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States, with a focus on areas related to health care. The potential health applications of AI continue to gain attention owing to their promise as well as challenges. For AI to fulfill its potential, it must not only be adopted by physicians and health providers but also by patients and other members of the public.ObjectiveThis study reviews the existing survey research on the United States' public attitudes toward AI in health care and reveals the challenges and opportunities for more effective and inclusive engagement on the use of AI in health settings.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of public opinion surveys, reports, and peer-reviewed journal articles published on Web of Science, PubMed, and Roper iPoll between January 2010 and January 2022. We include studies that are nationally representative US public opinion surveys and include at least one or more questions about attitudes toward AI in health care contexts. Two members of the research team independently screened the included studies. The reviewers screened study titles, abstracts, and methods for Web of Science and PubMed search results. For the Roper iPoll search results, individual survey items were assessed for relevance to the AI health focus, and survey details were screened to determine a nationally representative US sample. We reported the descriptive statistics available for the relevant survey questions. In addition, we performed secondary analyses on 4 data sets to further explore the findings on attitudes across different demographic groups.ResultsThis review includes 11 nationally representative surveys. The search identified 175 records, 39 of which were assessed for inclusion. Surveys include questions related to familiarity and experience with AI; applications, benefits, and risks of AI in health care settings; the use of AI in disease diagnosis, treatment, and robotic caregiving; and related issues of data privacy and surveillance. Although most Americans have heard of AI, they are less aware of its specific health applications. Americans anticipate that medicine is likely to benefit from advances in AI; however, the anticipated benefits vary depending on the type of application. Specific application goals, such as disease prediction, diagnosis, and treatment, matter for the attitudes toward AI in health care among Americans. Most Americans reported wanting control over their personal health data. The willingness to share personal health information largely depends on the institutional actor collecting the data and the intended use.ConclusionsAmericans in general report seeing health care as an area in which AI applications could be particularly beneficial. However, they have substantial levels of concern regarding specific applications, especially those in which AI is involved in decision-making and regarding the privacy of health information.
| S-EPMC10131909 | 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:BackgroundDevelopment of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies in health care is proceeding rapidly. The sharing and release of real-world data are key practical issues surrounding the implementation of AI solutions into existing clinical practice. However, data derived from daily patient care are necessary for initial training, and continued data supply is needed for the ongoing training, validation, and improvement of AI-based solutions. Data may need to be shared across multiple institutions and settings for the widespread implementation and high-quality use of these solutions. To date, solutions have not been widely implemented in Germany to meet the challenge of providing a sufficient data volume for the development of AI-based technologies for research and third-party entities. The Protected Artificial Intelligence Innovation Environment for Patient-Oriented Digital Health Solutions (pAItient) project aims to meet this challenge by creating a large data pool that feeds on the donation of data derived from daily patient care. Prior to building this data pool, physician perspectives regarding data donation for AI-based solutions should be studied.ObjectiveThis study explores physician perspectives on providing and using real-world care data for the development of AI-based solutions in health care in Germany.MethodsAs a part of the requirements analysis preceding the pAItient project, this qualitative study explored physician perspectives and expectations regarding the use of data derived from daily patient care in AI-based solutions. Semistructured, guide-based, and problem-centered interviews were audiorecorded, deidentified, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed inductively in a thematically structured approach.ResultsInterviews (N=8) with a mean duration of 24 (SD 7.8) minutes were conducted with 6 general practitioners and 2 hospital-based physicians. The mean participant age was 54 (SD 14.1; range 30-74) years, with an average experience as a physician of 25 (SD 13.9; range 1-45) years. Self-rated affinity toward modern information technology varied from very high to low (5-point Likert scale: mean 3.75, SD 1.1). All participants reported they would support the development of AI-based solutions in research contexts by donating deidentified data derived from daily patient care if subsequent data use was made transparent to them and their patients and the benefits for patient care were clear. Contributing to care optimization and efficiency were cited as motivation for potential data donation. Concerns regarding workflow integration (time and effort), appropriate deidentification, and the involvement of third-party entities with economic interests were discussed. The donation of data in reference to psychosomatic treatment needs was viewed critically.ConclusionsThe interviewed physicians reported they would agree to use real-world care data to support the development of AI-based solutions with a clear benefit for daily patient care. Joint ventures with third-party entities were viewed critically and should focus on care optimization and patient benefits rather than financial interests.
| S-EPMC9161099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into health communication systems has introduced a transformative approach to public health management, particularly during public health emergencies, capable of reaching billions through familiar digital channels. This paper explores the utility and implications of generalist conversational artificial intelligence (CAI) advanced AI systems trained on extensive datasets to handle a wide range of conversational tasks across various domains with human-like responsiveness. The specific focus is on the application of generalist CAI within messaging services, emphasizing its potential to enhance public health communication. We highlight the evolution and current applications of AI-driven messaging services, including their ability to provide personalized, scalable, and accessible health interventions. Specifically, we discuss the integration of large language models and generative AI in mainstream messaging platforms, which potentially outperform traditional information retrieval systems in public health contexts. We report a critical examination of the advantages of generalist CAI in delivering health information, with a case of its operationalization during the COVID-19 pandemic and propose the strategic deployment of these technologies in collaboration with public health agencies. In addition, we address significant challenges and ethical considerations, such as AI biases, misinformation, privacy concerns, and the required regulatory oversight. We envision a future with leverages generalist CAI in messaging apps, proposing a multiagent approach to enhance the reliability and specificity of health communications. We hope this commentary initiates the necessary conversations and research toward building evaluation approaches, adaptive strategies, and robust legal and technical frameworks to fully realize the benefits of AI-enhanced communications in public health, aiming to ensure equitable and effective health outcomes across diverse populations.
| S-EPMC11791462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is often heralded as a potential disruptor that will transform the practice of medicine. The amount of data collected and available in health care, coupled with advances in computational power, has contributed to advances in AI and an exponential growth of publications. However, the development of AI applications does not guarantee their adoption into routine practice. There is a risk that despite the resources invested, benefits for patients, staff, and society will not be realized if AI implementation is not better understood.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore how the implementation of AI in health care practice has been described and researched in the literature by answering 3 questions: What are the characteristics of research on implementation of AI in practice? What types and applications of AI systems are described? What characteristics of the implementation process for AI systems are discernible?MethodsA scoping review was conducted of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases to identify empirical studies of AI implementation in health care since 2011, in addition to snowball sampling of selected reference lists. Using Rayyan software, we screened titles and abstracts and selected full-text articles. Data from the included articles were charted and summarized.ResultsOf the 9218 records retrieved, 45 (0.49%) articles were included. The articles cover diverse clinical settings and disciplines; most (32/45, 71%) were published recently, were from high-income countries (33/45, 73%), and were intended for care providers (25/45, 56%). AI systems are predominantly intended for clinical care, particularly clinical care pertaining to patient-provider encounters. More than half (24/45, 53%) possess no action autonomy but rather support human decision-making. The focus of most research was on establishing the effectiveness of interventions (16/45, 35%) or related to technical and computational aspects of AI systems (11/45, 24%). Focus on the specifics of implementation processes does not yet seem to be a priority in research, and the use of frameworks to guide implementation is rare.ConclusionsOur current empirical knowledge derives from implementations of AI systems with low action autonomy and approaches common to implementations of other types of information systems. To develop a specific and empirically based implementation framework, further research is needed on the more disruptive types of AI systems being implemented in routine care and on aspects unique to AI implementation in health care, such as building trust, addressing transparency issues, developing explainable and interpretable solutions, and addressing ethical concerns around privacy and data protection.
| S-EPMC9582911 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9069257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResources are increasingly spent on artificial intelligence (AI) solutions for medical applications aiming to improve diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of diseases. While the need for transparency and reduction of bias in data and algorithm development has been addressed in past studies, little is known about the knowledge and perception of bias among AI developers.ObjectiveThis study's objective was to survey AI specialists in health care to investigate developers' perceptions of bias in AI algorithms for health care applications and their awareness and use of preventative measures.MethodsA web-based survey was provided in both German and English language, comprising a maximum of 41 questions using branching logic within the REDCap web application. Only the results of participants with experience in the field of medical AI applications and complete questionnaires were included for analysis. Demographic data, technical expertise, and perceptions of fairness, as well as knowledge of biases in AI, were analyzed, and variations among gender, age, and work environment were assessed.ResultsA total of 151 AI specialists completed the web-based survey. The median age was 30 (IQR 26-39) years, and 67% (101/151) of respondents were male. One-third rated their AI development projects as fair (47/151, 31%) or moderately fair (51/151, 34%), 12% (18/151) reported their AI to be barely fair, and 1% (2/151) not fair at all. One participant identifying as diverse rated AI developments as barely fair, and among the 2 undefined gender participants, AI developments were rated as barely fair or moderately fair, respectively. Reasons for biases selected by respondents were lack of fair data (90/132, 68%), guidelines or recommendations (65/132, 49%), or knowledge (60/132, 45%). Half of the respondents worked with image data (83/151, 55%) from 1 center only (76/151, 50%), and 35% (53/151) worked with national data exclusively.ConclusionsThis study shows that the perception of biases in AI overall is moderately fair. Gender minorities did not once rate their AI development as fair or very fair. Therefore, further studies need to focus on minorities and women and their perceptions of AI. The results highlight the need to strengthen knowledge about bias in AI and provide guidelines on preventing biases in AI health care applications.
| S-EPMC10337406 | biostudies-literature