Dataset Information

Patient Perceptions on Data Sharing and Applying Artificial Intelligence to Health Care Data: Cross-sectional Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Considerable 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.

Objective

We 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.

Methods

A 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.

Results

A 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.

Conclusions

There 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.

SUBMITTER: Aggarwal R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8430862 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients are increasingly seeking Web-based symptom checkers to obtain diagnoses. However, little is known about the characteristics of the patients who use these resources, their rationale for use, and whether they find them accurate and useful. OBJECTIVE:The study aimed to examine patients' experiences using an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted online symptom checker. METHODS:An online survey was administered between March 2, 2018, through March 15, 2018, to US users of the Isabel Symptom Checker within 6 months of their use. User characteristics, experiences of symptom checker use, experiences discussing results with physicians, and prior personal history of experiencing a diagnostic error were collected. RESULTS:A total of 329 usable responses was obtained. The mean respondent age was 48.0 (SD 16.7) years; most were women (230/304, 75.7%) and white (271/304, 89.1%). Patients most commonly used the symptom checker to better understand the causes of their symptoms (232/304, 76.3%), followed by for deciding whether to seek care (101/304, 33.2%) or where (eg, primary or urgent care: 63/304, 20.7%), obtaining medical advice without going to a doctor (48/304, 15.8%), and understanding their diagnoses better (39/304, 12.8%). Most patients reported receiving useful information for their health problems (274/304, 90.1%), with half reporting positive health effects (154/302, 51.0%). Most patients perceived it to be useful as a diagnostic tool (253/301, 84.1%), as a tool providing insights leading them closer to correct diagnoses (231/303, 76.2%), and reported they would use it again (278/304, 91.4%). Patients who discussed findings with their physicians (103/213, 48.4%) more often felt physicians were interested (42/103, 40.8%) than not interested in learning about the tool's results (24/103, 23.3%) and more often felt physicians were open (62/103, 60.2%) than not open (21/103, 20.4%) to discussing the results. Compared with patients who had not previously experienced diagnostic errors (missed or delayed diagnoses: 123/304, 40.5%), patients who had previously experienced diagnostic errors (181/304, 59.5%) were more likely to use the symptom checker to determine where they should seek care (15/123, 12.2% vs 48/181, 26.5%; P=.002), but they less often felt that physicians were interested in discussing the tool's results (20/34, 59% vs 22/69, 32%; P=.04). CONCLUSIONS:Despite ongoing concerns about symptom checker accuracy, a large patient-user group perceived an AI-assisted symptom checker as useful for diagnosis. Formal validation studies evaluating symptom checker accuracy and effectiveness in real-world practice could provide additional useful information about their benefit.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Public Private Interface-Electronic Patient Record (PPI-ePR) system was implemented as a new electronic platform to facilitate collaboration between the public and private sectors in Hong Kong. However, its barriers to participate and benefits have not been comprehensively assessed. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the awareness, acceptance, perceived benefits, and obstacles to participation among private doctors and the general public. METHODS:From December 2012 to January 2013, 2435 telephone interviews were performed by trained interviewers to survey randomly selected patients who were enrolled or not enrolled in the PPI-ePR system. In addition, self-administered surveys were sent by postal mail to 4229 registered doctors in Hong Kong. The questionnaires for both patients and doctors contained questions on subjects' awareness, acceptance, and perceptions of the PPI-ePR, perceived benefits and obstacles of participating in the program, reasons for not using the system after enrolling, and perceived areas for service improvement of the system. RESULTS:More than 53.1% (266/501) of enrolled patients believed that the PPI-ePR system would improve health care quality by reducing duplicate tests and treatments, while more than 76.8% (314/409) of enrolled doctors emphasized timely access to patients' medical records as the biggest benefit of their enrollment. Among nonenrolled patients, unawareness of the project was the most popular obstacle to enrolling in the PPI-ePR system (483/1200, 40.3%). Regarding nonenrolled doctors, the complicated registration process hindered them from participating in the program the most (95/198, 48.0%). Television, newspaper, and magazine advertisements and medical profession newsletters or journals were suggested as the most effective means to encourage participation in the program among surveyed patients (1297/1701, 76.2%) and doctors (428/610, 70.2%), respectively. Lack of clinical indication requiring data extraction from other hospitals was the main reason for low level of PPI-ePR use. CONCLUSIONS:This study comprehensively assessed the popularity, perceived benefits, and hindering factors of enrolling in the PPI-ePR system in Hong Kong. Low levels of awareness, few privacy concerns, and inactive use of the PPI-ePR system were among the key features for patients and physicians. Public promotions, simplified logistics, and a user-friendly online interface were suggested to improve the coverage and effectiveness of health information exchange between private and public health care sectors.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To gather knowledge on the current debate, opinions and attitudes of Italian patient and citizen groups on individual participant data (IPD) sharing from clinical studies. DESIGN:Cross-sectional online survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:A 22-item online questionnaire was sent by email to 2003 contacts of patient and citizen groups in Italy. We received 311 responses, checked for duplicate respondents (16); 295 single groups responded, 280 providing questionnaires eligible for analysis (response rate 15%). Ninety (32.1%) dealt with oncology and palliative care, 175 (46.2%) operated locally or regionally and 136 (48.6%) were involved in clinical research. OUTCOME MEASURE:Data on Italian patient and citizen groups' self-reported knowledge, attitudes and opinions on IPD sharing, mechanisms for IPD access, advantages and risks. RESULTS:Half the respondents (144 out of 280, 51%) had some knowledge about the IPD sharing debate, and 60 (42%) stated they had an official position (35 in favour, 19 in favour with restrictions, 2 against, 1 neither for nor against, 3 missing). Nineteen discussed the topic encouraged by this survey; 39% approved broad access by researchers and other professions and identified information to participants, data de-identification, secure archives, access agreements and sanctions for misuse as important aspects of IPD sharing models. Respondents highlighted re-identification, privacy and re-use of data for purposes that participants do not agree on, as main risks, advancement of innovation and reducing waste in research as main advantages. Around half believed IPD sharing would not discourage study participation. CONCLUSIONS:Half the respondents were aware of the debate. Those who had an official position were mainly in favour of IPD sharing. Many supported broad access, asking for conditions important for building trust in entities that handle IPD sharing.Although limited by the low response rate, these findings reinforce the demand for reliable and transparent processes where accountabilities are clear.

Project description:BackgroundDue to more elderly and patients with complex illnesses, there is an increasing pressure on the healthcare system. General practice especially feels this pressure as being the first point of contact for the patients. Developments in digitalization have undergone fast progress and data-driven artificial intelligence (AI) has shown great potential for use in general practice. To develop AI as a support tool for general practitioners (GPs), access to patients' health data is needed, but patients have concerns regarding data sharing. Furthermore, studies show that trust is important regarding the patient-GP relationship, data sharing, and AI. The aim of this paper is to uncover patient perspectives on trust regarding the patient-GP relationship, data sharing and AI in general practice.MethodThis study investigated 10 patients' perspectives through qualitative interviews and written vignettes were chosen to elicit the patients (interviewees) perspectives on topics that they were not familiar with prior to the interviews. The study specifically investigated perspectives on 1) The patient-GP relationship, 2) data sharing regarding developing AI for general practice, and 3) implementation and use of AI in general practice using thematic analysis. The study took place in the North Denmark Region and the interviewees included had to be registered in general practice and be above 18 years in age. We included four men between 25 to 74 years in age and six women between 27 to 46 years in age.ResultsThe interviewees expressed a high level of trust towards their GP and were willing to share their health data with their GP. The interviewees believed that AI could be a great help to GPs if used as a support tool in general practice. However, it was important for the interviewees that the GP would still be the primary decision maker.ConclusionPatients may be willing to share health data to help implement and use AI in general practice. If AI is implemented in a way that preserves the patient-GP relationship and used as a support tool for the GP, our results indicate that patients may be positive towards the use of AI in general practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A number of research funders, biomedical journals, pharmaceutical companies, and regulatory agencies have adopted policies advocating or mandating that clinical trialists share data with external investigators. We therefore sought to determine whether certain characteristics of trialists or their trials are associated with more unfavorable perceptions of data sharing. To date, no prior research has addressed this issue. METHODS:We conducted an exploratory analysis of responses to a cross-sectional, web-based survey. The survey sample consisted of trialists who were corresponding authors of clinical trials published in 2010 or 2011 in one of six general medical journals with the highest impact factors in 2011. The following key characteristics were examined: trialists' academic productivity and geographic location, trial funding source and size, and the journal in which it was published. Main outcome measures included: support for data sharing in principle, concerns with data sharing through repositories, and reasons for granting or denying requests. Chi-squared tests and Fisher's exact tests were used to assess statistical significance. RESULTS:Of 683 potential respondents, 317 completed the survey (response rate 46%). Both support for data sharing and reporting of specific concerns with sharing data through repositories exceeded 75%, but neither differed by trialist or trial characteristics. However, there were some significant differences in explicit reasons to share or withhold data. Respondents located in Western Europe more frequently indicated they have or would share data in order to receive academic benefits or recognition when compared with respondents located in the United States or Canada (58 versus 31%). In addition, respondents who were the most academically productive less frequently indicated they have or would withhold data in order to protect research subjects when compared with less academically productive respondents (24 versus 40%), as did respondents who received industry funding when compared with those who had not (24 versus 43%). CONCLUSIONS:Respondents indicated strong support for data sharing overall. There were few notable differences in how trialists viewed the benefits and risks of data sharing when categorized by trialists' academic productivity and geographic location, trial funding source and size, and the journal in which it was published.

Project description:BackgroundParents' use of mobile technologies may interfere with important parent-child interactions that are critical to healthy child development. This phenomenon is known as technoference. However, little is known about the population-wide awareness of this problem and the acceptability of artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools that help with mitigating technoference.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess parents' awareness of technoference and its harms, the acceptability of AI tools for mitigating technoference, and how each of these constructs vary across sociodemographic factors.MethodsWe administered a web-based survey to a nationally representative sample of parents of children aged ≤5 years. Parents' perceptions that their own technology use had risen to potentially problematic levels in general, their perceptions of their own parenting technoference, and the degree to which they found AI tools for mitigating technoference acceptable were assessed by using adaptations of previously validated scales. Multiple regression and mediation analyses were used to assess the relationships between these scales and each of the 6 sociodemographic factors (parent age, sex, language, ethnicity, educational attainment, and family income).ResultsOf the 305 respondents, 280 provided data that met the established standards for analysis. Parents reported that a mean of 3.03 devices (SD 2.07) interfered daily in their interactions with their child. Almost two-thirds of the parents agreed with the statements "I am worried about the impact of my mobile electronic device use on my child" and "Using a computer-assisted coach while caring for my child would help me notice more quickly when my device use is interfering with my caregiving" (187/281, 66.5% and 184/282, 65.1%, respectively). Younger age, Hispanic ethnicity, and Spanish language spoken at home were associated with increased technoference awareness. Compared to parents' perceived technoference and sociodemographic factors, parents' perceptions of their own problematic technology use was the factor that was most associated with the acceptance of AI tools.ConclusionsParents reported high levels of mobile device use and technoference around their youngest children. Most parents across a wide sociodemographic spectrum, especially younger parents, found the use of AI tools to help mitigate technoference during parent-child daily interaction acceptable and useful.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to assess social preferences for two different advanced digital health technologies and investigate the contextual dependency of the preferences.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was performed among the general population of Hungary aged 40 years and over. Participants were asked to imagine that they needed a total hip replacement surgery and to indicate whether they would prefer a traditional or a robot-assisted (RA) hip surgery. To better understand preferences for the chosen method, the willingness to pay (WTP) method was used. The same assessment was conducted for preferences between a radiologist's and AI-based image analysis in establishing the radiological diagnosis of a suspected tumour. Respondents' electronic health literacy was assessed with the eHEALS questionnaire. Descriptive methods were used to assess sample characteristics and differences between subgroups. Associations were investigated with correlation analysis and multiple linear regressions.ResultsAltogether, 1400 individuals (53.7% female) with a mean age of 58.3 (SD = 11.1) years filled in the survey. RA hip surgery was chosen by 762 (54.4%) respondents, but only 470 (33.6%) chose AI-based medical image evaluation. Those who opted for the digital technology had significantly higher educational levels and electronic health literacy (eHEALS). The majority of respondents were willing to pay to secure their preferred surgical (surgeon 67.2%, robot-assisted: 68.8%) and image assessment (radiologist: 70.9%; AI: 77.4%) methods, reporting similar average amounts in the first (p = 0.677), and a significantly higher average amount for radiologist vs. AI in the second task (p = 0.001). The regression showed a significant association between WTP and income, and in the hip surgery task, it also revealed an association with the type of intervention chosen.ConclusionsIndividuals with higher education levels seem to accept the advanced digital medical technologies more. However, the greater openness for RA surgery than for AI image assessment highlights that social preferences may depend considerably on the medical situation and the type of advanced digital technology. WTP results suggest rather firm preferences in the great majority of the cases. Determinants of preferences and real-world choices of affected patients should be further investigated in future studies.