ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021
Patients' Preferences for Artificial Intelligence Applications Versus Clinicians in Disease Diagnosis During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic in China: Discrete Choice Experiment.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preferences for AI-Enabled Health Care Technologies: Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Reporting Quality Assessment Using the DIRECT Checklist.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Barriers and Facilitators to Patient Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- The Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in the Endoscopic Diagnosis of Early Gastric Cancer: Pooled Analysis Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- [Between catheters and artificial intelligence: High-tech urology-where manual skills meet digital expertise].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Where Can Artificial Intelligence Assist Cancer Care?: Examining Patient-Centered Communication Dimension Effects.Health services research · 2026Article
- Rehabilitation status and preference for medical choice behaviours of long COVID-19 in China: a national cross-sectional study and discrete choice experiment.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Acceptance of generative AI-assisted medical decision-making among Chinese physicians and patients and its ethical determinants: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Preferences of Patients With Tuberculosis for AI-Assisted Remote Health Management: Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Exploring parental preferences for childhood obesity prevention program in China: a discrete choice experiment.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Preferences for attributes of an artificial intelligence-based risk assessment tool for HIV and sexually transmitted infections: a discrete choice experiment.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Patient Perspectives on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2024Article
- Roles and Competencies of Doctors in Artificial Intelligence Implementation: Qualitative Analysis Through Physician Interviews.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Population preferences for non-pharmaceutical interventions to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: trade-offs among public health, individual rights, and economics.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Article
- Article
- Applications of discrete choice experiments in COVID-19 research: Disparity in survey qualities between health and transport fields.Journal of choice modelling · 2022Article
- Perceptions and Needs of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care to Increase Adoption: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMisdiagnosis, arbitrary charges, annoying queues, and clinic waiting times among others are long-standing phenomena in the medical industry across the world. These factors can contribute to patient anxiety about misdiagnosis by clinicians. However, with the increasing growth in use of big data in biomedical and health care communities, the performance of artificial intelligence (Al) techniques of diagnosis is improving and can help avoid medical practice errors, including under the current circumstance of COVID-19.
objectiveThis study aims to visualize and measure patients' heterogeneous preferences from various angles of AI diagnosis versus clinicians in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic in China. We also aim to illustrate the different decision-making factors of the latent class of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and prospects for the application of AI techniques in judgment and management during the pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 and in the future.
methodsA DCE approach was the main analysis method applied in this paper. Attributes from different dimensions were hypothesized: diagnostic method, outpatient waiting time, diagnosis time, accuracy, follow-up after diagnosis, and diagnostic expense. After that, a questionnaire is formed. With collected data from the DCE questionnaire, we apply Sawtooth software to construct a generalized multinomial logit (GMNL) model, mixed logit model, and latent class model with the data sets. Moreover, we calculate the variables' coefficients, standard error, P value, and odds ratio (OR) and form a utility report to present the importance and weighted percentage of attributes.
resultsA total of 55.8% of the respondents (428 out of 767) opted for AI diagnosis regardless of the description of the clinicians. In the GMNL model, we found that people prefer the 100% accuracy level the most (OR 4.548, 95% CI 4.048-5.110, P<.001). For the latent class model, the most acceptable model consists of 3 latent classes of respondents. The attributes with the most substantial effects and highest percentage weights are the accuracy (39.29% in general) and expense of diagnosis (21.69% in general), especially the preferences for the diagnosis "accuracy" attribute, which is constant across classes. For class 1 and class 3, people prefer the AI + clinicians method (class 1: OR 1.247, 95% CI 1.036-1.463, P<.001; class 3: OR 1.958, 95% CI 1.769-2.167, P<.001). For class 2, people prefer the AI method (OR 1.546, 95% CI 0.883-2.707, P=.37). The OR of levels of attributes increases with the increase of accuracy across all classes.
conclusionsLatent class analysis was prominent and useful in quantifying preferences for attributes of diagnosis choice. People's preferences for the "accuracy" and "diagnostic expenses" attributes are palpable. AI will have a potential market. However, accuracy and diagnosis expenses need to be taken into consideration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.