Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35759326›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

The AI Will See You Now: Feasibility and Acceptability of a Conversational AI Medical Interviewing System.

Grace Hong, Margaret Smith, Steven Lin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Artificial intelligence to assist decision-making on pharmacotherapy: A feasibility study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Grace HongStanford Healthcare AI Applied Research Team, Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Redwood City, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7866-290X
Margaret SmithStanford Healthcare AI Applied Research Team, Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Redwood City, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7935-8627
Steven LinStanford Healthcare AI Applied Research Team, Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Redwood City, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8108-053X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary care physicians (PCPs) are often limited in their ability to collect detailed medical histories from patients, which can lead to errors or delays in diagnosis. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) show promise in augmenting current human-driven methods of collecting personal and family histories; however, such tools are largely unproven.

objectiveThe main aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a conversational AI medical interviewing system among patients.

methodsThe study was conducted among adult patients empaneled at a family medicine clinic within a large academic medical center in Northern California. Participants were asked to test an AI medical interviewing system, which uses a conversational avatar and chatbot to capture medical histories and identify patients with risk factors. After completing an interview with the AI system, participants completed a web-based survey inquiring about the performance of the system, the ease of using the system, and attitudes toward the system. Responses on a 7-point Likert scale were collected and evaluated using descriptive statistics.

resultsA total of 20 patients with a mean age of 50 years completed an interview with the AI system, including 12 females (60%) and 8 males (40%); 11 were White (55%), 8 were Asian (40%), and 1 was Black (5%), and 19 had at least a bachelor's degree (95%). Most participants agreed that using the system to collect histories could help their PCPs have a better understanding of their health (16/20, 80%) and help them stay healthy through identification of their health risks (14/20, 70%). Those who reported that the system was clear and understandable, and that they were able to learn it quickly, tended to be younger; those who reported that the tool could motivate them to share more comprehensive histories with their PCPs tended to be older.

conclusionsIn this feasibility and acceptability pilot of a conversational AI medical interviewing system, the majority of patients believed that it could help clinicians better understand their health and identify health risks; however, patients were split on the effort required to use the system, and whether AI should be used for medical interviewing. Our findings suggest areas for further research, such as understanding the user interface factors that influence ease of use and adoption, and the reasons behind patients' attitudes toward AI-assisted history-taking.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinicaldiagnostic errorsfeasibility studieshealth carehealthcaremedical historypatient acceptance of health carepatient-generated health data

Identifiers

PMID35759326
PMCPMC9274383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.