ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022
The Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care and Social Services in Australia: Findings From a Methodologically Innovative National Survey of Values and Attitudes (the AVA-AI Study).
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in healthcare: a qualitative study exploring consumer perspectives.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Patient perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence to support treatment decision making in renal cancer: findings from the KATY project.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- The double-edged sword of generative AI in dermatology: a multi-component cross-sectional study on physician burnout, patient satisfaction, and communication quality.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to Health Care AI Adoption Among Those Living in Wales and Working in Health Care in Wales: Online Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Principles and Practices of Community Engagement in AI for Population Health: Formative Qualitative Study of the AI for Diabetes Prediction and Prevention Project.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025Article
- Practical, epistemic and normative implications of algorithmic bias in healthcare artificial intelligence: a qualitative study of multidisciplinary expert perspectives.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- Understanding Public Judgements on Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Dialogue Group Findings From Australia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- The PDC30 Chatbot-Development of a Psychoeducational Resource on Dementia Caregiving Among Family Caregivers: Mixed Methods Acceptability Study.JMIR aging · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in healthcare: a scoping review of perceived threats to patient rights and safety.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024Article
- AI in Psoriatic Disease: Scoping Review.JMIR dermatology · 2024Article
- Barriers to and Facilitators of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Health Care: Scoping Review.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Patients' Views on AI for Risk Prediction in Shared Decision-Making for Knee Replacement Surgery: Qualitative Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Measures of socioeconomic advantage are not independent predictors of support for healthcare AI: subgroup analysis of a national Australian survey.BMJ health & care informatics · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) for use in health care and social services is rapidly developing, but this has significant ethical, legal, and social implications. Theoretical and conceptual research in AI ethics needs to be complemented with empirical research to understand the values and judgments of members of the public, who will be the ultimate recipients of AI-enabled services.
objectiveThe aim of the Australian Values and Attitudes on AI (AVA-AI) study was to assess and compare Australians' general and particular judgments regarding the use of AI, compare Australians' judgments regarding different health care and social service applications of AI, and determine the attributes of health care and social service AI systems that Australians consider most important.
methodsWe conducted a survey of the Australian population using an innovative sampling and weighting methodology involving 2 sample components: one from an omnibus survey using a sample selected using scientific probability sampling methods and one from a nonprobability-sampled web-based panel. The web-based panel sample was calibrated to the omnibus survey sample using behavioral, lifestyle, and sociodemographic variables. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed.
resultsWe included weighted responses from 1950 Australians in the web-based panel along with a further 2498 responses from the omnibus survey for a subset of questions. Both weighted samples were sociodemographically well spread. An estimated 60% of Australians support the development of AI in general but, in specific health care scenarios, this diminishes to between 27% and 43% and, for social service scenarios, between 31% and 39%. Although all ethical and social dimensions of AI presented were rated as important, accuracy was consistently the most important and reducing costs the least important. Speed was also consistently lower in importance. In total, 4 in 5 Australians valued continued human contact and discretion in service provision more than any speed, accuracy, or convenience that AI systems might provide.
conclusionsThe ethical and social dimensions of AI systems matter to Australians. Most think AI systems should augment rather than replace humans in the provision of both health care and social services. Although expressing broad support for AI, people made finely tuned judgments about the acceptability of particular AI applications with different potential benefits and downsides. Further qualitative research is needed to understand the reasons underpinning these judgments. The participation of ethicists, social scientists, and the public can help guide AI development and implementation, particularly in sensitive and value-laden domains such as health care and social services.
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.