用户在假设的模拟、数字化和人工智能医疗咨询场景中的偏好和信任:在线离散选择调查

IF 9 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Computers in Human Behavior Pub Date : 2024-08-22 DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108419
{"title":"用户在假设的模拟、数字化和人工智能医疗咨询场景中的偏好和信任:在线离散选择调查","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.chb.2024.108419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Current developments in telemedicine and artificial intelligence (AI) are significantly impacting doctor-patient interactions. This study examined the interacting role of individual traits with different levels of digitalization in participants' user preferences and trust within hypothetical medical scenarios. Specifically, preferences and trust levels towards various digitalized and analog formats, such as face-to-face interactions, video calls, written exchanges with a doctor or chatbot, or conversations with AI avatars were compared using standard scenarios of varying health risks and potentially embarrassing content.</p><p>In an online discrete choice experiment, 1009 participants rated hypothetical scenarios of varying medical concerns regarding their preferred conversation format and trust. User preference (<em>n</em> = 2018 observations) and trust (<em>n</em> = 9880 observations) were predicted using two multilevel models.</p><p>Higher perceived efficiency of digital conversation formats predicted user preference for digitalized formats. However, users’ preference for digitalized formats was generally lower compared to face-to-face interactions, especially when receiving bad news. The level of digitalization was negatively associated with trust, which was lower for consultations that involved receiving bad news or discussing potentially embarrassing content compared to good news. Trust ratings varied depending on the conversation topic.</p><p>When comparing analog and digitalized medical consultation scenarios, digitalized medical consultations are not equally suited for every medical consultation. Participants preferred personal contact, particularly when bad news needed to be communicated. Additionally, trust in the doctor significantly varies depending on the topic of conversation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48471,"journal":{"name":"Computers in Human Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224002875/pdfft?md5=8cf83cab566ddf9d5ccbb7f36fbd45ac&pid=1-s2.0-S0747563224002875-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"User preferences and trust in hypothetical analog, digitalized and AI-based medical consultation scenarios: An online discrete choice survey\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chb.2024.108419\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Current developments in telemedicine and artificial intelligence (AI) are significantly impacting doctor-patient interactions. This study examined the interacting role of individual traits with different levels of digitalization in participants' user preferences and trust within hypothetical medical scenarios. Specifically, preferences and trust levels towards various digitalized and analog formats, such as face-to-face interactions, video calls, written exchanges with a doctor or chatbot, or conversations with AI avatars were compared using standard scenarios of varying health risks and potentially embarrassing content.</p><p>In an online discrete choice experiment, 1009 participants rated hypothetical scenarios of varying medical concerns regarding their preferred conversation format and trust. User preference (<em>n</em> = 2018 observations) and trust (<em>n</em> = 9880 observations) were predicted using two multilevel models.</p><p>Higher perceived efficiency of digital conversation formats predicted user preference for digitalized formats. However, users’ preference for digitalized formats was generally lower compared to face-to-face interactions, especially when receiving bad news. The level of digitalization was negatively associated with trust, which was lower for consultations that involved receiving bad news or discussing potentially embarrassing content compared to good news. Trust ratings varied depending on the conversation topic.</p><p>When comparing analog and digitalized medical consultation scenarios, digitalized medical consultations are not equally suited for every medical consultation. Participants preferred personal contact, particularly when bad news needed to be communicated. Additionally, trust in the doctor significantly varies depending on the topic of conversation.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48471,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computers in Human Behavior\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224002875/pdfft?md5=8cf83cab566ddf9d5ccbb7f36fbd45ac&pid=1-s2.0-S0747563224002875-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computers in Human Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224002875\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224002875","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当前远程医疗和人工智能(AI)的发展对医患互动产生了重大影响。本研究探讨了在假设的医疗场景中,个人特质与不同程度的数字化在参与者的用户偏好和信任中的相互作用。具体来说,研究人员使用不同健康风险和潜在尴尬内容的标准场景,比较了用户对各种数字化和模拟形式的偏好和信任度,如面对面互动、视频通话、与医生或聊天机器人的书面交流,或与人工智能化身的对话。在一项在线离散选择实验中,1009 名参与者就其偏好的对话形式和信任度对不同医疗问题的假设场景进行了评分。用户偏好(n = 2018 个观测值)和信任(n = 9880 个观测值)通过两个多层次模型进行了预测。然而,与面对面互动相比,用户对数字化形式的偏好普遍较低,尤其是在接收坏消息时。数字化程度与信任度呈负相关,在接受坏消息或讨论可能令人尴尬的内容时,信任度低于接受好消息时。在比较模拟医疗咨询和数字化医疗咨询时发现,数字化医疗咨询并不适合所有的医疗咨询。参与者更倾向于与医生进行个人接触,尤其是在需要传达坏消息时。此外,谈话主题不同,对医生的信任度也大不相同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
User preferences and trust in hypothetical analog, digitalized and AI-based medical consultation scenarios: An online discrete choice survey

Current developments in telemedicine and artificial intelligence (AI) are significantly impacting doctor-patient interactions. This study examined the interacting role of individual traits with different levels of digitalization in participants' user preferences and trust within hypothetical medical scenarios. Specifically, preferences and trust levels towards various digitalized and analog formats, such as face-to-face interactions, video calls, written exchanges with a doctor or chatbot, or conversations with AI avatars were compared using standard scenarios of varying health risks and potentially embarrassing content.

In an online discrete choice experiment, 1009 participants rated hypothetical scenarios of varying medical concerns regarding their preferred conversation format and trust. User preference (n = 2018 observations) and trust (n = 9880 observations) were predicted using two multilevel models.

Higher perceived efficiency of digital conversation formats predicted user preference for digitalized formats. However, users’ preference for digitalized formats was generally lower compared to face-to-face interactions, especially when receiving bad news. The level of digitalization was negatively associated with trust, which was lower for consultations that involved receiving bad news or discussing potentially embarrassing content compared to good news. Trust ratings varied depending on the conversation topic.

When comparing analog and digitalized medical consultation scenarios, digitalized medical consultations are not equally suited for every medical consultation. Participants preferred personal contact, particularly when bad news needed to be communicated. Additionally, trust in the doctor significantly varies depending on the topic of conversation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
381
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: Computers in Human Behavior is a scholarly journal that explores the psychological aspects of computer use. It covers original theoretical works, research reports, literature reviews, and software and book reviews. The journal examines both the use of computers in psychology, psychiatry, and related fields, and the psychological impact of computer use on individuals, groups, and society. Articles discuss topics such as professional practice, training, research, human development, learning, cognition, personality, and social interactions. It focuses on human interactions with computers, considering the computer as a medium through which human behaviors are shaped and expressed. Professionals interested in the psychological aspects of computer use will find this journal valuable, even with limited knowledge of computers.
期刊最新文献
The negative consequences of networking through social network services: A social comparison perspective Can online behaviors be linked to mental health? Active versus passive social network usage on depression via envy and self-esteem Self-regulation deficiencies and perceived problematic online pornography use among young Chinese women: The role of self-acceptance Flow in ChatGPT-based logic learning and its influences on logic and self-efficacy in English argumentative writing Navigating online perils: Socioeconomic status, online activity lifestyles, and online fraud targeting and victimization of old adults in China
×
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