Trial reportJournal of medical ethics2025
Assessing the impact of information on patient attitudes toward artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support (AI/CDS): a pilot web-based SMART vignette study.
Trial report in Journal of medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- When Do Physicians Trust AI? The Role of Clinical Context in Decision Support: SMART vignette study.Research square · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is increasingly recognised that the success of artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support (AI/CDS) tools will depend on physician and patient trust, but factors impacting patients' views on clinical care reliant on AI have been less explored.
objectiveThis pilot study explores whether, and in what contexts, detail of explanation provided about AI/CDS tools impacts patients' attitudes toward the tools and their clinical care.
methodsWe designed a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial vignette web-based survey. Participants recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk were presented with hypothetical vignettes describing health concerns and were sequentially randomised along three factors: (1) the level of detail of explanation regarding an AI/CDS tool; (2) the AI/CDS result; and (3) the physician's level of agreement with the AI/CDS result. We compared mean ratings of comfort and confidence by the level of detail of explanation using t-tests. Regression models were fit to confirm conditional effects of detail of explanation.
resultsThe detail of explanation provided regarding the AI/CDS tools was positively related to respondents' comfort and confidence in the usage of the tools and their perception of the physician's final decision. The effects of detail of explanation on their perception of the physician's final decision were different given the AI/CDS result and the physician's agreement or disagreement with the result.
conclusionsMore information provided by physicians regarding the use of AI/CDS tools may improve patient attitudes toward healthcare involving AI/CDS tools in general and in certain contexts of the AI/CDS result and physician agreement.
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.