Understanding Public Judgements on Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Dialogue Group Findings From Australia

IF 3.2 3区医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Expectations Pub Date : 2025-03-27 DOI:10.1111/hex.70185

Emma K. Frost, Yves Saint James Aquino, Annette Braunack-Mayer, Stacy M. Carter

{"title":"Understanding Public Judgements on Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Dialogue Group Findings From Australia","authors":"Emma K. Frost, Yves Saint James Aquino, Annette Braunack-Mayer, Stacy M. Carter","doi":"10.1111/hex.70185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>There is a rapidly increasing number of applications of healthcare artificial intelligence (HCAI). Alongside this, a new field of research is investigating public support for HCAI. We conducted a study to identify the conditions on Australians' support for HCAI, with an emphasis on identifying the instances where using AI in healthcare systems was seen as acceptable or unacceptable.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted eight dialogue groups with 47 Australians, aiming for diversity in age, gender, working status, and experience with information and communication technologies. The moderators encouraged participants to discuss the reasons and conditions for their support for AI in health care.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Most participants were conditionally supportive of HCAI. The participants felt strongly that AI should be developed, implemented and controlled with patient interests in mind. They supported HCAI principally as an informational tool and hoped that it would empower people by enabling greater access to personalised information about their health. They were opposed to HCAI as a decision-making tool or as a replacement for physician–patient interaction.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Our findings indicate that Australians support HCAI as a tool that enhances rather than replaces human decision-making in health care. Australians value HCAI as an epistemic tool that can expand access to personalised health information but remain cautious about its use in clinical decision-making. Developers of HCAI tools should consider Australians' preferences for AI tools that provide epistemic resources, and their aversion to tools which make decisions autonomously, or replace interactions with their physicians.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>Members of the public were participants in this study. The participants made contributions by sharing their views and judgements.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70185","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70185","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

There is a rapidly increasing number of applications of healthcare artificial intelligence (HCAI). Alongside this, a new field of research is investigating public support for HCAI. We conducted a study to identify the conditions on Australians' support for HCAI, with an emphasis on identifying the instances where using AI in healthcare systems was seen as acceptable or unacceptable.

Methods

We conducted eight dialogue groups with 47 Australians, aiming for diversity in age, gender, working status, and experience with information and communication technologies. The moderators encouraged participants to discuss the reasons and conditions for their support for AI in health care.

Results

Most participants were conditionally supportive of HCAI. The participants felt strongly that AI should be developed, implemented and controlled with patient interests in mind. They supported HCAI principally as an informational tool and hoped that it would empower people by enabling greater access to personalised information about their health. They were opposed to HCAI as a decision-making tool or as a replacement for physician–patient interaction.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that Australians support HCAI as a tool that enhances rather than replaces human decision-making in health care. Australians value HCAI as an epistemic tool that can expand access to personalised health information but remain cautious about its use in clinical decision-making. Developers of HCAI tools should consider Australians' preferences for AI tools that provide epistemic resources, and their aversion to tools which make decisions autonomously, or replace interactions with their physicians.

Patient or Public Contribution

Members of the public were participants in this study. The participants made contributions by sharing their views and judgements.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

了解公众对医疗保健中人工智能的判断：来自澳大利亚的对话小组调查结果

医疗人工智能（HCAI）的应用正在迅速增加。与此同时，一个新的研究领域正在调查公众对HCAI的支持。我们进行了一项研究，以确定澳大利亚人对HCAI的支持情况，重点是确定在医疗系统中使用人工智能被视为可接受或不可接受的情况。方法我们对47名澳大利亚人进行了8个对话组，旨在了解年龄、性别、工作状态和信息通信技术经验的多样性。主持人鼓励与会者讨论支持人工智能在卫生保健领域的原因和条件。结果大多数参与者对HCAI有条件支持。与会者强烈认为，人工智能的开发、实施和控制应考虑到患者的利益。他们支持医疗辅助信息系统主要作为一种信息工具，并希望它能够使人们更容易获得有关其健康的个性化信息，从而增强人们的权能。他们反对将HCAI作为决策工具或替代医患互动。结论：我们的研究结果表明，澳大利亚人支持HCAI作为一种工具，以加强而不是取代人类在医疗保健中的决策。澳大利亚人认为HCAI是一种认知工具，可以扩大获得个性化健康信息的渠道，但对其在临床决策中的应用仍持谨慎态度。HCAI工具的开发者应该考虑澳大利亚人对提供认知资源的人工智能工具的偏好，以及他们对自主决策或取代与医生互动的工具的厌恶。患者或公众贡献本研究的参与者为公众成员。与会者通过分享自己的观点和判断做出了贡献。

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 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.