Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38333424›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2023

Artificial Intelligence in Health Care-Understanding Patient Information Needs and Designing Comprehensible Transparency: Qualitative Study.

Renee Robinson, Cara Liday, Sarah Lee, Ishan C Williams, Melanie Wright, Sungjoon An, Elaine Nguyen

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Stakeholder Perspectives of Implementation Barriers of Artificial Intelligence in Eye Care: A qualitative framework-based study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Renee RobinsonCollege of Pharmacy, Idaho State University, Anchorage, AK, US.
Cara LidayCollege of Pharmacy, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID, US.
Sarah LeeCollege of Pharmacy, Idaho State University, Meridian, ID, US.
Ishan C WilliamsSchool of Nursing, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, US.
Melanie WrightCollege of Pharmacy, Idaho State University, Meridian, ID, US.
Sungjoon AnCollege of Pharmacy, Idaho State University, Meridian, ID, US.
Elaine NguyenCollege of Pharmacy, Idaho State University, Meridian, ID, US.
Idaho State University · USUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is as a branch of computer science that uses advanced computational methods such as machine learning (ML), to calculate and/or predict health outcomes and address patient and provider health needs. While these technologies show great promise for improving healthcare, especially in diabetes management, there are usability and safety concerns for both patients and providers about the use of AI/ML in healthcare management. Objectives: To support and ensure safe use of AI/ML technologies in healthcare, the team worked to better understand: 1) patient information and training needs, 2) the factors that influence patients' perceived value and trust in AI/ML healthcare applications; and 3) on how best to support safe and appropriate use of AI/ML enabled devices and applications among people living with diabetes. Methods: To understand general patient perspectives and information needs related to the use of AI/ML in healthcare, we conducted a series of focus groups (n=9) and interviews (n=3) with patients (n=40) and interviews with providers (n=6) in Alaska, Idaho, and Virginia. Grounded Theory guided data gathering, synthesis, and analysis. Thematic content and constant comparison analysis were used to identify relevant themes and sub-themes. Inductive approaches were used to link data to key concepts including preferred patient-provider-interactions, patient perceptions of trust, accuracy, value, assurances, and information transparency. Results: Key summary themes and recommendations focused on: 1) patient preferences for AI/ML enabled device and/or application information; 2) patient and provider AI/ML-related device and/or application training needs; 3) factors contributing to patient and provider trust in AI/ML enabled devices and/or application; and 4) AI/ML-related device and/or application functionality and safety considerations. A number of participant (patients and providers) recommendations to improve device functionality to guide information and labeling mandates (e.g., links to online video resources, and access to 24/7 live in-person or virtual emergency support). Other patient recommendations include: 1) access to practice devices; 2) connection to local supports and reputable community resources; 3) simplified display and alert limits. Conclusion: Recommendations from both patients and providers could be used by Federal Oversight Agencies to improve utilization of AI/ML monitoring of technology use in diabetes, improving device safety and efficacy.

Identifiers

PMID38333424
PMCPMC10851077
OpenAlexW4376562227

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.