Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is believed that artificial intelligence (AI) will be an integral part of health care services in the near future and will be incorporated into several aspects of clinical care such as prognosis, diagnostics, and care planning. Thus, many technology companies have invested in producing AI clinical applications. Patients are one of the most important beneficiaries who potentially interact with these technologies and applications; thus, patients' perceptions may affect the widespread use of clinical AI. Patients should be ensured that AI clinical applications will not harm them, and that they will instead benefit from using AI technology for health care purposes. Although human-AI interaction can enhance health care outcomes, possible dimensions of concerns and risks should be addressed before its integration with routine clinical care.

Objective

The main objective of this study was to examine how potential users (patients) perceive the benefits, risks, and use of AI clinical applications for their health care purposes and how their perceptions may be different if faced with three health care service encounter scenarios.

Methods

We designed a 2×3 experiment that crossed a type of health condition (ie, acute or chronic) with three different types of clinical encounters between patients and physicians (ie, AI clinical applications as substituting technology, AI clinical applications as augmenting technology, and no AI as a traditional in-person visit). We used an online survey to collect data from 634 individuals in the United States.

Results

The interactions between the types of health care service encounters and health conditions significantly influenced individuals' perceptions of privacy concerns, trust issues, communication barriers, concerns about transparency in regulatory standards, liability risks, benefits, and intention to use across the six scenarios. We found no significant differences among scenarios regarding perceptions of performance risk and social biases.

Conclusions

The results imply that incompatibility with instrumental, technical, ethical, or regulatory values can be a reason for rejecting AI applications in health care. Thus, there are still various risks associated with implementing AI applications in diagnostics and treatment recommendations for patients with both acute and chronic illnesses. The concerns are also evident if the AI applications are used as a recommendation system under physician experience, wisdom, and control. Prior to the widespread rollout of AI, more studies are needed to identify the challenges that may raise concerns for implementing and using AI applications. This study could provide researchers and managers with critical insights into the determinants of individuals' intention to use AI clinical applications. Regulatory agencies should establish normative standards and evaluation guidelines for implementing AI in health care in cooperation with health care institutions. Regular audits and ongoing monitoring and reporting systems can be used to continuously evaluate the safety, quality, transparency, and ethical factors of AI clinical applications.

SUBMITTER: Esmaeilzadeh P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8663518 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are rapidly advancing fields with increasing utility in health care. We conducted a survey to determine the perceptions of Canadian vascular surgeons toward AI/ML.MethodsAn online questionnaire was distributed to 162 members of the Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery. Self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions with respect to potential applications, limitations, and facilitators of AI/ML were assessed.ResultsOverall, 50 of the 162 Canadian vascular surgeons (31%) responded to the survey. Most respondents were aged 30 to 59 years (72%), male (80%), and White (67%) and practiced in academic settings (72%). One half of the participants reported that their knowledge of AI/ML was poor or very poor. Most were excited or very excited about AI/ML (66%) and were interested or very interested in learning more about the field (83.7%). The respondents believed that AI/ML would be useful or very useful for diagnosis (62%), prognosis (72%), patient selection (56%), image analysis (64%), intraoperative guidance (52%), research (88%), and education (80%). The limitations that the participants were most concerned about were errors leading to patient harm (42%), bias based on patient demographics (42%), and lack of clinician knowledge and skills in AI/ML (40%). Most were not concerned or were mildly concerned about job replacement (86%). The factors that were most important to encouraging clinicians to use AI/ML models were improvements in efficiency (88%), accurate predictions (84%), and ease of use (84%). The comments from respondents focused on the pressing need for the implementation of AI/ML in vascular surgery owing to the potential to improve care delivery.ConclusionsCanadian vascular surgeons have positive views on AI/ML and believe this technology can be applied to multiple aspects of the specialty to improve patient care, research, and education. Current self-reported knowledge is poor, although interest was expressed in learning more about the field. The facilitators and barriers to the effective use of AI/ML identified in the present study can guide future development of these tools in vascular surgery.

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.

Project description:BackgroundDespite advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) to develop prediction and classification models, little research has been devoted to real-world translations with a user-centered design approach. AI development studies in the health care context have often ignored two critical factors of ecological validity and human cognition, creating challenges at the interface with clinicians and the clinical environment.ObjectiveThe aim of this literature review was to investigate the contributions made by major human factors communities in health care AI applications. This review also discusses emerging research gaps, and provides future research directions to facilitate a safer and user-centered integration of AI into the clinical workflow.MethodsWe performed an extensive mapping review to capture all relevant articles published within the last 10 years in the major human factors journals and conference proceedings listed in the "Human Factors and Ergonomics" category of the Scopus Master List. In each published volume, we searched for studies reporting qualitative or quantitative findings in the context of AI in health care. Studies are discussed based on the key principles such as evaluating workload, usability, trust in technology, perception, and user-centered design.ResultsForty-eight articles were included in the final review. Most of the studies emphasized user perception, the usability of AI-based devices or technologies, cognitive workload, and user's trust in AI. The review revealed a nascent but growing body of literature focusing on augmenting health care AI; however, little effort has been made to ensure ecological validity with user-centered design approaches. Moreover, few studies (n=5 against clinical/baseline standards, n=5 against clinicians) compared their AI models against a standard measure.ConclusionsHuman factors researchers should actively be part of efforts in AI design and implementation, as well as dynamic assessments of AI systems' effects on interaction, workflow, and patient outcomes. An AI system is part of a greater sociotechnical system. Investigators with human factors and ergonomics expertise are essential when defining the dynamic interaction of AI within each element, process, and result of the work system.

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.

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.

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.