Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38231544›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2024

Trust in and Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Medicine: Mixed Methods Study.

Daria Shevtsova, Anam Ahmed, Iris W A Boot, Carmen Sanges, Michael Hudecek, John J L Jacobs, Simon Hort, Hubertus J M Vrijhoef

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
–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

49 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Daria ShevtsovaPanaxea bv, Den Bosch, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1050-7510
Anam AhmedPanaxea bv, Den Bosch, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3452-262X
Iris W A BootPanaxea bv, Den Bosch, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4760-412X
Carmen SangesUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0000-1184-387X
Michael HudecekUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2280-2202
John J L JacobsOrtec bv, Zoetermeer, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2249-5668
Simon HortFraunhofer Institute for Production Technology, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0696-0937
Hubertus J M VrijhoefPanaxea bv, Den Bosch, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5539-4671

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)-powered technologies are being increasingly used in almost all fields, including medicine. However, to successfully implement medical AI applications, ensuring trust and acceptance toward such technologies is crucial for their successful spread and timely adoption worldwide. Although AI applications in medicine provide advantages to the current health care system, there are also various associated challenges regarding, for instance, data privacy, accountability, and equity and fairness, which could hinder medical AI application implementation.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to identify factors related to trust in and acceptance of novel AI-powered medical technologies and to assess the relevance of those factors among relevant stakeholders.

methodsThis study used a mixed methods design. First, a rapid review of the existing literature was conducted, aiming to identify various factors related to trust in and acceptance of novel AI applications in medicine. Next, an electronic survey including the rapid review-derived factors was disseminated among key stakeholder groups. Participants (N=22) were asked to assess on a 5-point Likert scale (1=irrelevant to 5=relevant) to what extent they thought the various factors (N=19) were relevant to trust in and acceptance of novel AI applications in medicine.

resultsThe rapid review (N=32 papers) yielded 110 factors related to trust and 77 factors related to acceptance toward AI technology in medicine. Closely related factors were assigned to 1 of the 19 overarching umbrella factors, which were further grouped into 4 categories: human-related (ie, the type of institution AI professionals originate from), technology-related (ie, the explainability and transparency of AI application processes and outcomes), ethical and legal (ie, data use transparency), and additional factors (ie, AI applications being environment friendly). The categorized 19 umbrella factors were presented as survey statements, which were evaluated by relevant stakeholders. Survey participants (N=22) represented researchers (n=18, 82%), technology providers (n=5, 23%), hospital staff (n=3, 14%), and policy makers (n=3, 14%). Of the 19 factors, 16 (84%) human-related, technology-related, ethical and legal, and additional factors were considered to be of high relevance to trust in and acceptance of novel AI applications in medicine. The patient's gender, age, and education level were found to be of low relevance (3/19, 16%).

conclusionsThe results of this study could help the implementers of medical AI applications to understand what drives trust and acceptance toward AI-powered technologies among key stakeholders in medicine. Consequently, this would allow the implementers to identify strategies that facilitate trust in and acceptance of medical AI applications among key stakeholders and potential users.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMedicineTrustEducational StatusHumansacceptanceartificial intelligencemedicinemixed methodsrapid reviewsurveytrust

Identifiers

PMID38231544
PMCPMC10831593

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.