ArticleJMIR AI2023
Artificial Intelligence in Health Care-Understanding Patient Information Needs and Designing Comprehensible Transparency: Qualitative Study.
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stakeholder Perspectives on the Integration of AI in Diabetes Care: Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Barriers and Facilitators to Patient Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Adoption of artificial intelligence in primary health care: systematic synthesis of stakeholder perspectives.BMC primary care · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of Type and Timing of Clinician-Facing AI Support on Patient Trust in Medical Consultations: 2 Vignette Experiments.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- AI-Augmented Teach-Back in Dentistry: From Patient Education to Verified Clinical Understanding.Cureus · 2026Review
- Toward trustworthy healthcare AI: designing academic research for translation readiness.Molecular systems biology · 2026Review
- 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) · 2026Article
- Integrating Generative AI Into Patient-Centered Clinical Decision Support: Viewpoint on Research and Practice Considerations.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Key Information Influencing Patient Decision-Making About AI in Health Care: Survey Experiment Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The Expanding Role of Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Cross-Specialty Chairside Perspective.Cureus · 2025Review
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence as a Tool for Self-Care in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes-An Integrative Literature Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Patient information needs for transparent and trustworthy cardiovascular artificial intelligence: A qualitative study.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence applied to the study of human milk and breastfeeding: a scoping review.International breastfeeding journal · 2024Article
- Letter to the Editor "Survey on Value Elements Provided by Artificial Intelligence and Their Eligibility for Insurance Coverage With an Emphasis on Patient-Centered Outcomes".Korean journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Benefit-Risk Assessment of ChatGPT Applications in the Field of Diabetes and Metabolic Illnesses: A Qualitative Study.Clinical medicine insights. Endocrinology and diabetes · 2024Article
- Patient-Engaged AI: The Nursing Path to Health Equity.SAGE open nursingArticle
- Primary Care Provider Preferences Regarding Artificial Intelligence in Point-of-Care Cancer Screening.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.