Assessing the impact of information on patient attitudes toward artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support (AI/CDS): a pilot web-based SMART vignette study.

IF 3.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-12-12 DOI:10.1136/jme-2024-110080
Bohye Kim, Katie Ryan, Jane Paik Kim
{"title":"Assessing the impact of information on patient attitudes toward artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support (AI/CDS): a pilot web-based SMART vignette study.","authors":"Bohye Kim, Katie Ryan, Jane Paik Kim","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It is increasingly recognised that the success of artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support (AI/CDS) tools will depend on physician and patient trust, but factors impacting patients' views on clinical care reliant on AI have been less explored.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This pilot study explores whether, and in what contexts, detail of explanation provided about AI/CDS tools impacts patients' attitudes toward the tools and their clinical care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We designed a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial vignette web-based survey. Participants recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk were presented with hypothetical vignettes describing health concerns and were sequentially randomised along three factors: (1) the level of detail of explanation regarding an AI/CDS tool; (2) the AI/CDS result; and (3) the physician's level of agreement with the AI/CDS result. We compared mean ratings of comfort and confidence by the level of detail of explanation using t-tests. Regression models were fit to confirm conditional effects of detail of explanation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The detail of explanation provided regarding the AI/CDS tools was positively related to respondents' comfort and confidence in the usage of the tools and their perception of the physician's final decision. The effects of detail of explanation on their perception of the physician's final decision were different given the AI/CDS result and the physician's agreement or disagreement with the result.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>More information provided by physicians regarding the use of AI/CDS tools may improve patient attitudes toward healthcare involving AI/CDS tools in general and in certain contexts of the AI/CDS result and physician agreement.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110080","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: It is increasingly recognised that the success of artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support (AI/CDS) tools will depend on physician and patient trust, but factors impacting patients' views on clinical care reliant on AI have been less explored.

Objective: This pilot study explores whether, and in what contexts, detail of explanation provided about AI/CDS tools impacts patients' attitudes toward the tools and their clinical care.

Methods: We designed a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial vignette web-based survey. Participants recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk were presented with hypothetical vignettes describing health concerns and were sequentially randomised along three factors: (1) the level of detail of explanation regarding an AI/CDS tool; (2) the AI/CDS result; and (3) the physician's level of agreement with the AI/CDS result. We compared mean ratings of comfort and confidence by the level of detail of explanation using t-tests. Regression models were fit to confirm conditional effects of detail of explanation.

Results: The detail of explanation provided regarding the AI/CDS tools was positively related to respondents' comfort and confidence in the usage of the tools and their perception of the physician's final decision. The effects of detail of explanation on their perception of the physician's final decision were different given the AI/CDS result and the physician's agreement or disagreement with the result.

Conclusions: More information provided by physicians regarding the use of AI/CDS tools may improve patient attitudes toward healthcare involving AI/CDS tools in general and in certain contexts of the AI/CDS result and physician agreement.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
期刊最新文献
Assessing the impact of information on patient attitudes toward artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support (AI/CDS): a pilot web-based SMART vignette study. Moral parenthood and gestation: replies to Cordeiro, Murphy, Robinson and Baron. Ethical reflection of Chinese scientists on the dual-use concerns of emerging medical biotechnology. Ecological preferences and patient autonomy. Report on an audit of two decades' activities of a clinical ethics committee: the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Clinical Ethics Advisory Group (CEAG).
×
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