Which AI doctor would you like to see? Emulating healthcare provider-patient communication models with GPT-4: proof-of-concept and ethical exploration.

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI:10.1136/jme-2024-110256
Hazem Zohny, Jemima Winifred Allen, Dominic Wilkinson, Julian Savulescu
{"title":"Which AI doctor would you like to see? Emulating healthcare provider-patient communication models with GPT-4: proof-of-concept and ethical exploration.","authors":"Hazem Zohny, Jemima Winifred Allen, Dominic Wilkinson, Julian Savulescu","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in enhancing various aspects of healthcare, including health provider-patient communication. However, some have raised the concern that such communication may adopt implicit communication norms that deviate from what patients want or need from talking with their healthcare provider. This paper explores the possibility of using LLMs to enable patients to choose their preferred communication style when discussing their medical cases. By providing a proof-of-concept demonstration using ChatGPT-4, we suggest LLMs can emulate different healthcare provider-patient communication approaches (building on Emanuel and Emanuel's four models: paternalistic, informative, interpretive and deliberative). This allows patients to engage in a communication style that aligns with their individual needs and preferences. We also highlight potential risks associated with using LLMs in healthcare communication, such as reinforcing patients' biases and the persuasive capabilities of LLMs that may lead to unintended manipulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7618332/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110256","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

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in enhancing various aspects of healthcare, including health provider-patient communication. However, some have raised the concern that such communication may adopt implicit communication norms that deviate from what patients want or need from talking with their healthcare provider. This paper explores the possibility of using LLMs to enable patients to choose their preferred communication style when discussing their medical cases. By providing a proof-of-concept demonstration using ChatGPT-4, we suggest LLMs can emulate different healthcare provider-patient communication approaches (building on Emanuel and Emanuel's four models: paternalistic, informative, interpretive and deliberative). This allows patients to engage in a communication style that aligns with their individual needs and preferences. We also highlight potential risks associated with using LLMs in healthcare communication, such as reinforcing patients' biases and the persuasive capabilities of LLMs that may lead to unintended manipulation.

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
你想看哪位人工智能医生?使用GPT-4模拟医疗保健提供者-患者沟通模型:概念验证和伦理探索。
大型语言模型(llm)在增强医疗保健的各个方面(包括医疗提供者与患者之间的沟通)方面已显示出潜力。然而,一些人提出了这样的担忧,即这种沟通可能采用隐性的沟通规范,偏离了患者想要或需要与他们的医疗保健提供者交谈。本文探讨了使用法学硕士的可能性,使患者在讨论他们的医疗案例时选择他们喜欢的沟通方式。通过使用ChatGPT-4提供概念验证演示,我们建议法学硕士可以模拟不同的医疗保健提供者-患者沟通方法(基于Emanuel和Emanuel的四个模型:家长式、信息性、解释性和审议性)。这允许患者参与与他们的个人需求和偏好相一致的沟通方式。我们还强调了在医疗保健沟通中使用法学硕士的潜在风险,例如强化患者的偏见和法学硕士的说服能力,这可能导致意外的操纵。
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
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
Beyond inconsistency: defending the moral boundary of the dead donor rule. Dead donor rule: death, dysfunction and bodily respect. Changing face of transplant medicine: can we do without the dead donor rule? Attention not consistency: why we need dead donor rule in a thick moral world. The dead donor rule is far from perfect, but context is key.
×
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:604180095
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