AI-Inclusivity in Healthcare: Motivating an Institutional Epistemic Trust Perspective

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-04-29 DOI:10.1017/s0963180124000215
Kritika Maheshwari, Christoph Jedan, Imke Christiaans, Mariëlle van Gijn, Els Maeckelberghe, Mirjam Plantinga
{"title":"AI-Inclusivity in Healthcare: Motivating an Institutional Epistemic Trust Perspective","authors":"Kritika Maheshwari, Christoph Jedan, Imke Christiaans, Mariëlle van Gijn, Els Maeckelberghe, Mirjam Plantinga","doi":"10.1017/s0963180124000215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper motivates institutional epistemic trust as an important ethical consideration informing the responsible development and implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies (or AI-inclusivity) in healthcare. Drawing on recent literature on epistemic trust and public trust in science, we start by examining the conditions under which we can have institutional epistemic trust in AI-inclusive healthcare systems and their members as providers of medical information and advice. In particular, we discuss that institutional epistemic trust in AI-inclusive healthcare depends, in part, on the reliability of AI-inclusive medical practices and programs, its knowledge and understanding among different stakeholders involved, its effect on epistemic and communicative duties and burdens on medical professionals and, finally, its interaction and alignment with the public’s ethical values and interests as well as background sociopolitical conditions against which AI-inclusive healthcare systems are embedded. To assess the applicability of these conditions, we explore a recent proposal for AI-inclusivity within the Dutch Newborn Screening Program. In doing so, we illustrate the importance, scope, and potential challenges of fostering and maintaining institutional epistemic trust in a context where generating, assessing, and providing reliable and timely screening results for genetic risk is of high priority. Finally, to motivate the general relevance of our discussion and case study, we end with suggestions for strategies, interventions, and measures for AI-inclusivity in healthcare more widely.</p>","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0963180124000215","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper motivates institutional epistemic trust as an important ethical consideration informing the responsible development and implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies (or AI-inclusivity) in healthcare. Drawing on recent literature on epistemic trust and public trust in science, we start by examining the conditions under which we can have institutional epistemic trust in AI-inclusive healthcare systems and their members as providers of medical information and advice. In particular, we discuss that institutional epistemic trust in AI-inclusive healthcare depends, in part, on the reliability of AI-inclusive medical practices and programs, its knowledge and understanding among different stakeholders involved, its effect on epistemic and communicative duties and burdens on medical professionals and, finally, its interaction and alignment with the public’s ethical values and interests as well as background sociopolitical conditions against which AI-inclusive healthcare systems are embedded. To assess the applicability of these conditions, we explore a recent proposal for AI-inclusivity within the Dutch Newborn Screening Program. In doing so, we illustrate the importance, scope, and potential challenges of fostering and maintaining institutional epistemic trust in a context where generating, assessing, and providing reliable and timely screening results for genetic risk is of high priority. Finally, to motivate the general relevance of our discussion and case study, we end with suggestions for strategies, interventions, and measures for AI-inclusivity in healthcare more widely.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医疗保健领域的人工智能包容性:从机构认识论信任的视角出发
本文将机构认识论信任作为一个重要的伦理考虑因素,为医疗保健领域负责任地开发和实施人工智能(AI)技术(或人工智能包容性)提供依据。借鉴近期有关认识信任和公众对科学的信任的文献,我们首先研究了在哪些条件下,我们可以对人工智能包容性医疗系统及其作为医疗信息和建议提供者的成员产生机构认识信任。特别是,我们讨论了机构对人工智能全纳医疗的认识信任在一定程度上取决于人工智能全纳医疗实践和计划的可靠性、不同利益相关者对其的了解和理解、其对医疗专业人员的认识和交流责任和负担的影响,以及最后,其与公众的道德价值观和利益以及人工智能全纳医疗系统所处的社会政治背景条件的互动和一致性。为了评估这些条件的适用性,我们探讨了荷兰新生儿筛查计划最近提出的人工智能包容性建议。在此过程中,我们说明了在生成、评估和提供可靠、及时的遗传风险筛查结果是重中之重的情况下,培养和维护机构认识论信任的重要性、范围和潜在挑战。最后,为了激发我们的讨论和案例研究的普遍相关性,我们在结束语中就医疗保健领域更广泛的人工智能包容性提出了战略、干预和措施建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics is designed to address the challenges of biology, medicine and healthcare and to meet the needs of professionals serving on healthcare ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and rehabilitation centres. The aim of the journal is to serve as the international forum for the wide range of serious and urgent issues faced by members of healthcare ethics committees, physicians, nurses, social workers, clergy, lawyers and community representatives.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Ethics and the Observant Jewish and Muslim Patient: Shared Theocentric Perspectives in Practice. The Roles of Understanding and Belief in Prognostic Awareness. "Intellectual Lightening": A Tribute to John Harris through a Collection of Memories, Imaginary Books, Fictional Reviews, and an Interview. Decreasing Perceived Moral Distress in Pediatrics Residents: A Pilot Study. An Educational Framework for Healthcare Ethics Consultation to Approach Structural Stigma in Mental Health and Substance Use Health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1