John Grosser, Juliane Düvel, Lena Hasemann, Emilia Schneider, Wolfgang Greiner
{"title":"Studying the Potential Effects of Artificial Intelligence on Physician Autonomy: Scoping Review.","authors":"John Grosser, Juliane Düvel, Lena Hasemann, Emilia Schneider, Wolfgang Greiner","doi":"10.2196/59295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Physician autonomy has been found to play a role in physician acceptance and adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine. However, there is still no consensus in the literature on how to define and assess physician autonomy. Furthermore, there is a lack of research focusing specifically on the potential effects of AI on physician autonomy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review addresses the following research questions: (1) How do qualitative studies conceptualize and assess physician autonomy? (2) Which aspects of physician autonomy are addressed by these studies? (3) What are the potential benefits and harms of AI for physician autonomy identified by these studies?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a scoping review of qualitative studies on AI and physician autonomy published before November 6, 2023, by searching MEDLINE and Web of Science. To answer research question 1, we determined whether the included studies explicitly include physician autonomy as a research focus and whether their interview, survey, and focus group questions explicitly name or implicitly include aspects of physician autonomy. To answer research question 2, we extracted the qualitative results of the studies, categorizing them into the 7 components of physician autonomy introduced by Schulz and Harrison. We then inductively formed subcomponents based on the results of the included studies in each component. To answer research question 3, we summarized the potentially harmful and beneficial effects of AI on physician autonomy in each of the inductively formed subcomponents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 369 studies after duplicates were removed. Of these, 27 studies remained after titles and abstracts were screened. After full texts were screened, we included a total of 7 qualitative studies. Most studies did not explicitly name physician autonomy as a research focus or explicitly address physician autonomy in their interview, survey, and focus group questions. No studies addressed a complete set of components of physician autonomy; while 3 components were addressed by all included studies, 2 components were addressed by none. We identified a total of 11 subcomponents for the 5 components of physician autonomy that were addressed by at least 1 study. For most of these subcomponents, studies reported both potential harms and potential benefits of AI for physician autonomy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Little research to date has explicitly addressed the potential effects of AI on physician autonomy and existing results on these potential effects are mixed. Further qualitative and quantitative research is needed that focuses explicitly on physician autonomy and addresses all relevant components of physician autonomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":73551,"journal":{"name":"JMIR AI","volume":"4 ","pages":"e59295"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11950692/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR AI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/59295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Physician autonomy has been found to play a role in physician acceptance and adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine. However, there is still no consensus in the literature on how to define and assess physician autonomy. Furthermore, there is a lack of research focusing specifically on the potential effects of AI on physician autonomy.
Objective: This scoping review addresses the following research questions: (1) How do qualitative studies conceptualize and assess physician autonomy? (2) Which aspects of physician autonomy are addressed by these studies? (3) What are the potential benefits and harms of AI for physician autonomy identified by these studies?
Methods: We performed a scoping review of qualitative studies on AI and physician autonomy published before November 6, 2023, by searching MEDLINE and Web of Science. To answer research question 1, we determined whether the included studies explicitly include physician autonomy as a research focus and whether their interview, survey, and focus group questions explicitly name or implicitly include aspects of physician autonomy. To answer research question 2, we extracted the qualitative results of the studies, categorizing them into the 7 components of physician autonomy introduced by Schulz and Harrison. We then inductively formed subcomponents based on the results of the included studies in each component. To answer research question 3, we summarized the potentially harmful and beneficial effects of AI on physician autonomy in each of the inductively formed subcomponents.
Results: The search yielded 369 studies after duplicates were removed. Of these, 27 studies remained after titles and abstracts were screened. After full texts were screened, we included a total of 7 qualitative studies. Most studies did not explicitly name physician autonomy as a research focus or explicitly address physician autonomy in their interview, survey, and focus group questions. No studies addressed a complete set of components of physician autonomy; while 3 components were addressed by all included studies, 2 components were addressed by none. We identified a total of 11 subcomponents for the 5 components of physician autonomy that were addressed by at least 1 study. For most of these subcomponents, studies reported both potential harms and potential benefits of AI for physician autonomy.
Conclusions: Little research to date has explicitly addressed the potential effects of AI on physician autonomy and existing results on these potential effects are mixed. Further qualitative and quantitative research is needed that focuses explicitly on physician autonomy and addresses all relevant components of physician autonomy.
背景:医生的自主性已经被发现在医生接受和采用医学中的人工智能(AI)方面发挥作用。然而,在如何定义和评估医师自主性的文献中仍然没有达成共识。此外,还缺乏专门针对人工智能对医生自主性的潜在影响的研究。目的:本综述探讨了以下研究问题:(1)定性研究如何概念化和评估医师自主性?(2)这些研究涉及医生自主的哪些方面?(3)这些研究确定了人工智能对医生自主的潜在利与弊?方法:我们通过检索MEDLINE和Web of Science,对2023年11月6日之前发表的关于人工智能和医生自主性的定性研究进行了范围综述。为了回答研究问题1,我们确定纳入的研究是否明确将医生自主权作为研究重点,以及他们的访谈、调查和焦点小组问题是否明确或隐含地包括医生自主权的各个方面。为了回答研究问题2,我们提取了这些研究的定性结果,将它们归类为Schulz和Harrison引入的医生自主性的7个组成部分。然后,我们根据每个组件中纳入的研究结果归纳形成子组件。为了回答研究问题3,我们总结了人工智能在每个归纳形成的子组件中对医生自主性的潜在有害和有益影响。结果:删除重复项后,检索得到369项研究。其中,筛选了题目和摘要后,剩下27项研究。全文筛选后,我们共纳入7项定性研究。大多数研究没有明确地将医生自主权作为研究重点,也没有在访谈、调查和焦点小组问题中明确地提到医生自主权。没有研究涉及医生自主的全套组成部分;虽然所有纳入的研究都解决了3个组成部分,但没有解决2个组成部分。我们确定了医生自主的5个组成部分共11个子组成部分,这些组成部分至少在1项研究中得到了解决。对于大多数这些子组件,研究报告了人工智能对医生自主的潜在危害和潜在益处。结论:迄今为止,很少有研究明确指出人工智能对医生自主性的潜在影响,现有的研究结果也参差不齐。需要进一步的定性和定量研究,明确关注医生自主,并解决医生自主的所有相关组成部分。