Artificial Intelligence in Medical Care – Patients' Perceptions on Caregiving Relationships and Ethics: A Qualitative Study

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Expectations Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI:10.1111/hex.70216
Jana Gundlack, Sarah Negash, Carolin Thiel, Charlotte Buch, Jan Schildmann, Susanne Unverzagt, Rafael Mikolajczyk, Thomas Frese, PEAK consortium
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence in Medical Care – Patients' Perceptions on Caregiving Relationships and Ethics: A Qualitative Study","authors":"Jana Gundlack,&nbsp;Sarah Negash,&nbsp;Carolin Thiel,&nbsp;Charlotte Buch,&nbsp;Jan Schildmann,&nbsp;Susanne Unverzagt,&nbsp;Rafael Mikolajczyk,&nbsp;Thomas Frese,&nbsp;PEAK consortium","doi":"10.1111/hex.70216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Artificial intelligence (AI) offers several opportunities to enhance medical care, but practical application is limited. Consideration of patient needs is essential for the successful implementation of AI-based systems. Few studies have explored patients' perceptions, especially in Germany, resulting in insufficient exploration of perspectives of outpatients, older patients and patients with chronic diseases. We aimed to explore how patients perceive AI in medical care, focusing on relationships to physicians and ethical aspects.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a qualitative study with six semi-structured focus groups from June 2022 to March 2023. We analysed data using a content analysis approach by systemising the textual material via a coding system. Participants were mostly recruited from outpatient settings in the regions of Halle and Erlangen, Germany. They were enrolled primarily through convenience sampling supplemented by purposive sampling.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Patients (<i>N</i> = 35; 13 females, 22 males) with a median age of 50 years participated. Participants were mixed in socioeconomic status and affinity for new technology. Most had chronic diseases. Perceived main advantages of AI were its efficient and flawless functioning, its ability to process and provide large data volume, and increased patient safety. Major perceived disadvantages were impersonality, potential data security issues, and fear of errors based on medical staff relying too much on AI. A dominant theme was that human interaction, personal conversation, and understanding of emotions cannot be replaced by AI. Participants emphasised the need to involve everyone in the informing process about AI. Most considered physicians as responsible for decisions resulting from AI applications. Transparency of data use and data protection were other important points.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Patients could generally imagine AI as support in medical care if its usage is focused on patient well-being and the human relationship is maintained. Including patients' needs in the development of AI and adequate communication about AI systems are essential for successful implementation in practice.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>Patients' perceptions as participants in this study were crucial. Further, patients assessed the presentation and comprehensibility of the research material during a pretest, and recommended adaptations were implemented. After each FG, space was provided for requesting modifications and discussion.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70216","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70216","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers several opportunities to enhance medical care, but practical application is limited. Consideration of patient needs is essential for the successful implementation of AI-based systems. Few studies have explored patients' perceptions, especially in Germany, resulting in insufficient exploration of perspectives of outpatients, older patients and patients with chronic diseases. We aimed to explore how patients perceive AI in medical care, focusing on relationships to physicians and ethical aspects.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study with six semi-structured focus groups from June 2022 to March 2023. We analysed data using a content analysis approach by systemising the textual material via a coding system. Participants were mostly recruited from outpatient settings in the regions of Halle and Erlangen, Germany. They were enrolled primarily through convenience sampling supplemented by purposive sampling.

Results

Patients (N = 35; 13 females, 22 males) with a median age of 50 years participated. Participants were mixed in socioeconomic status and affinity for new technology. Most had chronic diseases. Perceived main advantages of AI were its efficient and flawless functioning, its ability to process and provide large data volume, and increased patient safety. Major perceived disadvantages were impersonality, potential data security issues, and fear of errors based on medical staff relying too much on AI. A dominant theme was that human interaction, personal conversation, and understanding of emotions cannot be replaced by AI. Participants emphasised the need to involve everyone in the informing process about AI. Most considered physicians as responsible for decisions resulting from AI applications. Transparency of data use and data protection were other important points.

Conclusions

Patients could generally imagine AI as support in medical care if its usage is focused on patient well-being and the human relationship is maintained. Including patients' needs in the development of AI and adequate communication about AI systems are essential for successful implementation in practice.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patients' perceptions as participants in this study were crucial. Further, patients assessed the presentation and comprehensibility of the research material during a pretest, and recommended adaptations were implemented. After each FG, space was provided for requesting modifications and discussion.

Abstract Image

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
医疗护理中的人工智能——患者对护理关系和伦理的看法:一项定性研究
人工智能(AI)为改善医疗保健提供了许多机会,但实际应用有限。考虑患者的需求对于成功实施基于人工智能的系统至关重要。很少有研究对患者的感知进行探索,尤其是在德国,对门诊患者、老年患者和慢性病患者的视角探索不足。我们的目标是探索患者如何看待医疗保健中的人工智能,重点关注与医生的关系和道德方面。方法于2022年6月至2023年3月对6个半结构化焦点小组进行定性研究。我们通过编码系统系统化文本材料,使用内容分析方法分析数据。参与者大多从德国哈雷和埃尔兰根地区的门诊机构招募。他们以方便抽样为主,目的抽样为辅。结果患者35例;13名女性,22名男性),年龄中位数为50岁。参与者的社会经济地位和对新技术的喜爱程度参差不齐。大多数人患有慢性疾病。人们认为人工智能的主要优势是其高效和完美的功能,处理和提供大数据量的能力,以及提高患者安全性。人们认为的主要缺点是缺乏人情感、潜在的数据安全问题,以及担心医务人员过度依赖人工智能而出现错误。一个主要的主题是,人类的互动、个人对话和对情绪的理解是无法被人工智能取代的。与会者强调,需要让每个人都参与到人工智能的通报过程中来。大多数人认为医生应该对人工智能应用产生的决定负责。数据使用和数据保护的透明度是其他重要问题。结论如果人工智能的使用以患者的福祉为中心,并维持人际关系,患者通常可以将其想象为医疗保健的支持。在人工智能的开发中考虑患者的需求,并就人工智能系统进行充分的沟通,对于在实践中成功实施至关重要。在这项研究中,患者作为参与者的看法是至关重要的。此外,患者在预测期间评估了研究材料的呈现和可理解性,并实施了建议的调整。在每次FG之后,提供了请求修改和讨论的空间。
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
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
期刊最新文献
A Pre–Post Study of the Feasibility, Acceptability and Benefits of a Co-Design Approach for the Development of a Digital Suicide Prevention App for International Students Symptom Management in Chronic Heart Failure: Strategies and Behaviours From Patients’ Perspectives—A Scoping Review Addressing Medical Deserts in Europe: Lessons From a Comparative Analysis. Psychosocial Impact of Breast Density Notification Through Breast Cancer Screening: A Qualitative Interview Study. One Eye Open: Reflections on Embedding Lived Experience in Sleep, Circadian Rhythms, and Mood Disorder Research.
×
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