Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39052315›Full record

ArticleJMIR nursing2024

AI-Assisted Decision-Making in Long-Term Care: Qualitative Study on Prerequisites for Responsible Innovation.

Dirk R M Lukkien, Nathalie E Stolwijk, Sima Ipakchian Askari, Bob M Hofstede, Henk Herman Nap, Wouter P C Boon, Alexander Peine, Ellen H M Moors, Mirella M N Minkman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors.

Dirk R M LukkienVilans Centre of Expertise of Long Term Care, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5911-0958
Nathalie E StolwijkVilans Centre of Expertise of Long Term Care, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0001-0635-6839
Sima Ipakchian AskariVilans Centre of Expertise of Long Term Care, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0004-5874-8916
Bob M HofstedeVilans Centre of Expertise of Long Term Care, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6967-3711
Henk Herman NapVilans Centre of Expertise of Long Term Care, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2545-0510
Wouter P C BoonCopernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1218-193X
Alexander PeineFaculty of Humanities, Open University of The Netherlands, Heerlen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2395-8487
Ellen H M MoorsCopernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9724-5308
Mirella M N MinkmanVilans Centre of Expertise of Long Term Care, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4922-5983

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies, such as AI-based decision support systems (AI-DSSs), can help sustain and improve the quality and efficiency of care, their deployment creates ethical and social challenges. In recent years, a growing prevalence of high-level guidelines and frameworks for responsible AI innovation has been observed. However, few studies have specified the responsible embedding of AI-based technologies, such as AI-DSSs, in specific contexts, such as the nursing process in long-term care (LTC) for older adults.

objectivePrerequisites for responsible AI-assisted decision-making in nursing practice were explored from the perspectives of nurses and other professional stakeholders in LTC.

methodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with 24 care professionals in Dutch LTC, including nurses, care coordinators, data specialists, and care centralists. A total of 2 imaginary scenarios about AI-DSSs were developed beforehand and used to enable participants articulate their expectations regarding the opportunities and risks of AI-assisted decision-making. In addition, 6 high-level principles for responsible AI were used as probing themes to evoke further consideration of the risks associated with using AI-DSSs in LTC. Furthermore, the participants were asked to brainstorm possible strategies and actions in the design, implementation, and use of AI-DSSs to address or mitigate these risks. A thematic analysis was performed to identify the opportunities and risks of AI-assisted decision-making in nursing practice and the associated prerequisites for responsible innovation in this area.

resultsThe stance of care professionals on the use of AI-DSSs is not a matter of purely positive or negative expectations but rather a nuanced interplay of positive and negative elements that lead to a weighed perception of the prerequisites for responsible AI-assisted decision-making. Both opportunities and risks were identified in relation to the early identification of care needs, guidance in devising care strategies, shared decision-making, and the workload of and work experience of caregivers. To optimally balance the opportunities and risks of AI-assisted decision-making, seven categories of prerequisites for responsible AI-assisted decision-making in nursing practice were identified: (1) regular deliberation on data collection; (2) a balanced proactive nature of AI-DSSs; (3) incremental advancements aligned with trust and experience; (4) customization for all user groups, including clients and caregivers; (5) measures to counteract bias and narrow perspectives; (6) human-centric learning loops; and (7) the routinization of using AI-DSSs.

conclusionsThe opportunities of AI-assisted decision-making in nursing practice could turn into drawbacks depending on the specific shaping of the design and deployment of AI-DSSs. Therefore, we recommend considering the responsible use of AI-DSSs as a balancing act. Moreover, considering the interrelatedness of the identified prerequisites, we call for various actors, including developers and users of AI-DSSs, to cohesively address the different factors important to the responsible embedding of AI-DSSs in practice.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDecision MakingLong-Term CareQualitative ResearchAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsdecision support systemsethicslong-term careresponsible innovationstakeholder perspectives

Identifiers

PMID39052315
PMCPMC11310645

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.