Implementation challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) in primary care: Perspectives of general practitioners in London UK.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2024-11-21 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0314196
Mohammad S Razai, Roaa Al-Bedaery, Liza Bowen, Reem Yahia, Lakshmi Chandrasekaran, Pippa Oakeshott
{"title":"Implementation challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) in primary care: Perspectives of general practitioners in London UK.","authors":"Mohammad S Razai, Roaa Al-Bedaery, Liza Bowen, Reem Yahia, Lakshmi Chandrasekaran, Pippa Oakeshott","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0314196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Implementing artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, particularly in primary care settings, raises crucial questions about practical challenges and opportunities. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) on the impact of AI in primary care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A convenience sampling method was employed, involving a hybrid workshop with 12 GPs and 4 GP registrars. Verbal consent was obtained, and the workshop was audio recorded. Thematic analysis was conducted on the recorded data and contemporaneous notes to identify key themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The workshop took place in 2023 and included 16 GPs aged 30 to 72 of diverse backgrounds and expertise. Most (93%) were female, and five (31%) self-identified as ethnic minorities. Thematic analysis identified two key themes related to AI in primary care: the potential benefits (such as help with diagnosis and risk assessment) and the associated concerns and challenges. Sub-themes included anxieties about diagnostic accuracy, AI errors, industry influence, and overcoming integration resistance. GPs also worried about increased workload, particularly extra, unnecessary patient tests, the lack of evidence base for AI programmes or accountability of AI systems and appropriateness of AI algorithms for different population groups. Participants emphasised the importance of transparency, trust-building, and research rigour to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of AI systems in healthcare.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings suggest that GPs recognise the potential of AI in primary care but raise important concerns regarding evidence base, accountability, bias and workload. The participants emphasised the need for rigorous evaluation of AI technologies. Further research and collaboration between healthcare professionals, policymakers, and technology organisations are essential to navigating these challenges and harnessing the full potential of AI.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"19 11","pages":"e0314196"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314196","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Implementing artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, particularly in primary care settings, raises crucial questions about practical challenges and opportunities. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) on the impact of AI in primary care.

Methods: A convenience sampling method was employed, involving a hybrid workshop with 12 GPs and 4 GP registrars. Verbal consent was obtained, and the workshop was audio recorded. Thematic analysis was conducted on the recorded data and contemporaneous notes to identify key themes.

Results: The workshop took place in 2023 and included 16 GPs aged 30 to 72 of diverse backgrounds and expertise. Most (93%) were female, and five (31%) self-identified as ethnic minorities. Thematic analysis identified two key themes related to AI in primary care: the potential benefits (such as help with diagnosis and risk assessment) and the associated concerns and challenges. Sub-themes included anxieties about diagnostic accuracy, AI errors, industry influence, and overcoming integration resistance. GPs also worried about increased workload, particularly extra, unnecessary patient tests, the lack of evidence base for AI programmes or accountability of AI systems and appropriateness of AI algorithms for different population groups. Participants emphasised the importance of transparency, trust-building, and research rigour to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of AI systems in healthcare.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that GPs recognise the potential of AI in primary care but raise important concerns regarding evidence base, accountability, bias and workload. The participants emphasised the need for rigorous evaluation of AI technologies. Further research and collaboration between healthcare professionals, policymakers, and technology organisations are essential to navigating these challenges and harnessing the full potential of AI.

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
人工智能(AI)在初级保健中的应用挑战:英国伦敦全科医生的观点。
简介:在医疗保健领域,尤其是在基层医疗机构中应用人工智能(AI),提出了有关实际挑战和机遇的关键问题:人工智能(AI)在医疗保健领域的应用,尤其是在初级医疗机构中的应用,提出了有关实际挑战和机遇的关键问题。本研究旨在探讨全科医生(GPs)对人工智能在初级医疗中的影响的看法:方法:采用便利抽样法,与 12 名全科医生和 4 名全科医生注册医师举办了一个混合研讨会。研讨会获得了口头同意,并进行了录音。对记录的数据和当时的笔记进行了主题分析,以确定关键主题:研讨会于 2023 年举行,共有 16 名年龄在 30 岁至 72 岁之间、具有不同背景和专长的全科医生参加。大部分(93%)为女性,5 名(31%)自我认同为少数民族。主题分析确定了与初级医疗中的人工智能相关的两个关键主题:潜在的益处(如帮助诊断和风险评估)以及相关的担忧和挑战。次主题包括对诊断准确性、人工智能错误、行业影响和克服整合阻力的担忧。全科医生还担心工作量增加,特别是额外的、不必要的病人测试,人工智能计划缺乏证据基础或人工智能系统缺乏问责制,以及人工智能算法是否适合不同人群。与会者强调了透明度、建立信任和严谨研究的重要性,以评估人工智能系统在医疗保健中的有效性和安全性:研究结果表明,全科医生认识到了人工智能在初级医疗保健中的潜力,但也提出了有关证据基础、问责制、偏见和工作量等方面的重要问题。与会者强调需要对人工智能技术进行严格评估。医疗保健专业人员、政策制定者和技术组织之间的进一步研究与合作对于应对这些挑战和充分利用人工智能的潜力至关重要。
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
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
期刊最新文献
Comparing the impact of contextual associations and statistical regularities in visual search and attention orienting. Shared decision making applied to self-management program for hypertensive patients: A scoping review protocol. Identification of gully erosion activity and its influencing factors: A case study of the Sunshui River Basin. Complex regional pain syndrome after distal radius fracture: A survey of current practices. Compound 4f, a novel brain-penetrant reversible monoacylglycerol inhibitor, ameliorates neuroinflammation, neuronal cell loss, and cognitive impairment in mice with kainic acid-induced neurodegeneration.
×
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