ArticleJMIR human factors2024
Trust in and Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Medicine: Mixed Methods Study.
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.
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
49 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of AI-Assisted Diagnosis on American Patients' Trust in and Intention to Seek Help From Health Care Professionals: Randomized, Web-Based Survey Experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- From resistance to reliance: A human-centered analysis of the spectrum of radiologists' trust in AI.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Home-Care and Community Nursing: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Local Deployment of Open-Weight Language Models in Dermatology: Viewpoint on Privacy, Equity, and Practical Implementation.JMIR dermatology · 2026Article
- Consumer Perspectives on Trust in and Benefits of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Two sides of the same algorithm: a qualitative study of ART professionals' and patients' views on the use of machine learning for embryo assessment and selection.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- User Acceptance of an AI-Powered Medical History-Taking Training System Among Undergraduate Medical Students: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Embryo Selection: Current Approaches and Clinical Implications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Explainability and Human Oversight for AI-Generated Exercise Guidance in Digital Healthcare: A Governance-Oriented Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Development and validation of the Oxford Attitudes to Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Scale.JAAD international · 2026Article
- Article
- Unlocking AI Chatbot Potential in Healthcare: Trust-Enhanced DeLone & McLean IS Success Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From broad strokes to fine details: qualitative research on the challenges of smart hospitals in Iran.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2026Article
- Mapping AI startup investment and innovation in healthcare using a five-tier AI systems complexity framework.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Eye-Tracked Visual Attention to Anthropomorphic Appearance and Empathic Responses in AI Medical Conversational Agents: Dissociating Trust Gains from Attentional Synergy.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Attitudes Towards the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Conjoint Analysis Survey in Singapore.Asian bioethics review · 2026Article
- Quantitative comparison of explainable AI methods for interpreting deep learning-based classification of 3D gait kinematics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Anticipating Moral and Economic Considerations, Opportunities, and Potential Frictions for AI in Medical Imaging: Multistakeholder Cocreation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Familiarity, attitude and practice of postgraduate health science students of Pakistan regarding the implication of artificial intelligence in research: an analytical survey.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Primary Health Care (PHC) Systems: A Framework-Guided Comparative Qualitative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.