Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39680885›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Investigating Older Adults' Perceptions of AI Tools for Medication Decisions: Vignette-Based Experimental Survey.

Sarah E Vordenberg, Julianna Nichols, Vincent D Marshall, Kristie Rebecca Weir, Michael P Dorsch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Patient Portal Use Among Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Sarah E VordenbergCollege of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9828-9759
Julianna NicholsCollege of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0009-0006-6479-661X
Vincent D MarshallCollege of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2594-7407
Kristie Rebecca WeirSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9507-5050
Michael P DorschCollege of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2910-1879

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the public release of large language models, research is needed to explore whether older adults would be receptive to personalized medication advice given by artificial intelligence (AI) tools.

objectiveThis study aims to identify predictors of the likelihood of older adults stopping a medication and the influence of the source of the information.

methodsWe conducted a web-based experimental survey in which US participants aged ≥65 years were asked to report their likelihood of stopping a medication based on the source of information using a 6-point Likert scale (scale anchors: 1=not at all likely; 6=extremely likely). In total, 3 medications were presented in a randomized order: aspirin (risk of bleeding), ranitidine (cancer-causing chemical), or simvastatin (lack of benefit with age). In total, 5 sources of information were presented: primary care provider (PCP), pharmacist, AI that connects with the electronic health record (EHR) and provides advice to the PCP ("EHR-PCP"), AI with EHR access that directly provides advice ("EHR-Direct"), and AI that asks questions to provide advice ("Questions-Direct") directly. We calculated descriptive statistics to identify participants who were extremely likely (score 6) to stop the medication and used logistic regression to identify demographic predictors of being likely (scores 4-6) as opposed to unlikely (scores 1-3) to stop a medication.

resultsOlder adults (n=1245) reported being extremely likely to stop a medication based on a PCP's recommendation (n=748, 60.1% [aspirin] to n=858, 68.9% [ranitidine]) compared to a pharmacist (n=227, 18.2% [simvastatin] to n=361, 29% [ranitidine]). They were infrequently extremely likely to stop a medication when recommended by AI (EHR-PCP: n=182, 14.6% [aspirin] to n=289, 23.2% [ranitidine]; EHR-Direct: n=118, 9.5% [simvastatin] to n=212, 17% [ranitidine]; Questions-Direct: n=121, 9.7% [aspirin] to n=204, 16.4% [ranitidine]). In adjusted analyses, characteristics that increased the likelihood of following an AI recommendation included being Black or African American as compared to White (Questions-Direct: odds ratio [OR] 1.28, 95% CI 1.06-1.54 to EHR-PCP: OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.17-1.73), having higher self-reported health (EHR-PCP: OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01-1.18 to EHR-Direct: OR 1.13 95%, CI 1.05-1.23), having higher confidence in using an EHR (Questions-Direct: OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.16-1.58 to EHR-PCP: OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.33-1.80), and having higher confidence using apps (EHR-Direct: OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.18-1.62 to EHR-PCP: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.27-1.74). Older adults with higher health literacy were less likely to stop a medication when recommended by AI (EHR-PCP: OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.88 to EHR-Direct: OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.92).

conclusionsOlder adults have reservations about following an AI recommendation to stop a medication. However, individuals who are Black or African American, have higher self-reported health, or have higher confidence in using an EHR or apps may be receptive to AI-based medication recommendations.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAgedAged, 80 and overDecision MakingElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and Questionnairesagingartificial intelligenceattitudedecision-makingdecisionsdrugelectronic heath recordgeriatricmedicationolder adultsperceptionperspectivepharmaceuticpharmacologyrecommendationsurveysurveysvignette

Identifiers

PMID39680885
PMCPMC11686026

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.