ArticlePreventive medicine reports2024
Australian healthcare workers' views on artificial intelligence in BreastScreen: Results of a mixed method survey study.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors influencing AI acceptance in radiology: a systematic review across the radiology workflow.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Autonomous AI in prostate cancer: the road ahead towards clinical implementation.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- The Design-Driven Innovation Path of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Healthcare: Theory, Practice, and Future Prospects.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Patient perceptions and attitudes towards the use of artificial intelligence in the symptomatic breast unit.European radiology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and breast cancer screening in Serbia: a dual-perspective qualitative study among radiologists and screening-aged women.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Article
- Attitudes, Perceptions, and Factors Influencing the Adoption of AI in Health Care Among Medical Staff: Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The evolving role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in medicine, particularly in radiology and population-based breast cancer screening programs, offers potential accuracy gains and efficiency improvements. However, successful implementation requires understanding of healthcare workers' views on AI, which this study aims to explore within the Australian BreastScreen program. Methods: An online survey was distributed to clinical staff involved in breast imaging, collecting responses from November 2022 to April 2023. The survey encompassed demographic information, opinions, and experiences with AI in medical imaging, with questions covering various scenarios of AI integration in BreastScreen. Results: Out of an estimated 350 professionals contacted, 95 responded, with 84.2 % (80/95) being radiologists. Less than half of respondents (44.9 %, 40/89) had worked with artificial intelligence for image classification previously. The majority of radiologists 74.2 % (46/62) thought that the use of AI in reading mammograms for BreastScreen would improve workflow. However, radiologists thought they would behave with increasing caution with scenarios where AI was more autonomous, with the majority of radiologists (63.3 %, 38/60) uncomfortable with holding accountability when the AI was used to triage and remove cases from the workflow. Notably, 60 % of radiologists (36/60) expressed concerns about accountability. Discussion: The findings suggest an optimistic attitude towards AI among Australian healthcare workers, although when given hypothetical scenarios for the way AI could be integrated into BreastScreen, there was increasing caution with scenarios where AI was more autonomous. This study highlights understanding and concerns of healthcare professionals working in population screening which are important to address when implementing AI into the healthcare system.
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.