Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38347935›Full record

ReviewDigital health

Beliefs, experiences and concerns of using artificial intelligence in healthcare: A qualitative synthesis.

Carol-Ann Fazakarley, Maria Breen, Ben Thompson, Paul Leeson, Victoria Williamson

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07074405 (Understanding the Acceptability of Artificial Intelligence as a Support for Healthcare Providers in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer - the Patient at the Heart of His Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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.

NCT07074405 nacompletednot on this map

Understanding the Acceptability of Artificial Intelligence as a Support for Healthcare Providers in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer - the Patient at the Heart of His Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de LiegeRan2024 to 2025Enrolled51ConditionsProstate CancerArmsQuestionnaire and Physical Exam
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carol-Ann FazakarleyUltromics Ltd, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0354-8915
Maria BreenBreen Clinical Research, London, UK.
Ben ThompsonUltromics Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Paul LeesonRDM Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Victoria WilliamsonKing's Centre for Military Health Research, King's College London, London, UK.
John Radcliffe Hospital · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a developing field in the context of healthcare. As this technology continues to be implemented in patient care, there is a growing need to understand the thoughts and experiences of stakeholders in this area to ensure that future AI development and implementation is successful. The aim of this study was to conduct a literature search of qualitative studies exploring the opinions of stakeholders such as clinicians, patients, and technology experts in order to establish the most common themes and ideas that have been presented in this research. Methods: A literature search was conducted of existing qualitative research on stakeholder beliefs about the use of AI use in healthcare. Twenty-one papers were selected and analysed resulting in the development of four key themes relating to patient care, patient-doctor relationships, lack of education and resources, and the need for regulations. Results: Overall, patients and healthcare workers are open to the use of AI in care and appear positive about potential benefits. However, concerns were raised relating to the lack of empathy in interactions of AI tools, and potential risks that may arise from the data collection needed for AI use and development. Stakeholders in the healthcare, technology, and business sectors all stressed that there was a lack of appropriate education, funding, and guidelines surrounding AI, and these concerns needed to be addressed to ensure future implementation is safe and suitable for patient care. Conclusion: Ultimately, the results found in this study highlighted that there was a need for communication between stakeholder in order for these concerns to be addressed, mitigate potential risks, and maximise benefits for patients and clinicians alike. The results also identified a need for further qualitative research in this area to further understand stakeholder experiences as AI use continues to develop.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence < generaldigital health < generalmachine learning < generalqualitative < studiessystematic reviews < studies

Identifiers

PMID38347935
PMCPMC10860471
OpenAlexW4391738690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.