Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39753215›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

Allied Health Professionals' Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in the Clinical Setting: Cross-Sectional Survey.

Jane Hoffman, Laetitia Hattingh, Lucy Shinners, Rebecca L Angus, Brent Richards, Ian Hughes, Rachel Wenke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Jane HoffmanPharmacy Department, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Southport, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3408-5930
Laetitia HattinghPharmacy Department, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Southport, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4553-743X
Lucy ShinnersFaculty of Health, Southern Cross University, Bilinga, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7160-5838
Rebecca L AngusPharmacy Department, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Southport, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1839-9641
Brent RichardsPharmacy Department, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Southport, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2613-0308
Ian HughesPharmacy Department, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Southport, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8126-1303
Rachel WenkePharmacy Department, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Southport, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2100-4898

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to address growing logistical and economic pressures on the health care system by reducing risk, increasing productivity, and improving patient safety; however, implementing digital health technologies can be disruptive. Workforce perception is a powerful indicator of technology use and acceptance, however, there is little research available on the perceptions of allied health professionals (AHPs) toward AI in health care.

objectiveThis study aimed to explore AHP perceptions of AI and the opportunities and challenges for its use in health care delivery.

methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted at a health service in, Queensland, Australia, using the Shinners Artificial Intelligence Perception tool.

resultsA total of 231 (22.1%) participants from 11 AHPs responded to the survey. Participants were mostly younger than 40 years (157/231, 67.9%), female (189/231, 81.8%), working in a clinical role (196/231, 84.8%) with a median of 10 years' experience in their profession. Most participants had not used AI (185/231, 80.1%), had little to no knowledge about AI (201/231, 87%), and reported workforce knowledge and skill as the greatest challenges to incorporating AI in health care (178/231, 77.1%). Age (P=.01), profession (P=.009), and AI knowledge (P=.02) were strong predictors of the perceived professional impact of AI. AHPs generally felt unprepared for the implementation of AI in health care, with concerns about a lack of workforce knowledge on AI and losing valued tasks to AI. Prior use of AI (P=.02) and years of experience as a health care professional (P=.02) were significant predictors of perceived preparedness for AI. Most participants had not received education on AI (190/231, 82.3%) and desired training (170/231, 73.6%) and believed AI would improve health care. Ideas and opportunities suggested for the use of AI within the allied health setting were predominantly nonclinical, administrative, and to support patient assessment tasks, with a view to improving efficiencies and increasing clinical time for direct patient care.

conclusionsEducation and experience with AI are needed in health care to support its implementation across allied health, the second largest workforce in health. Industry and academic partnerships with clinicians should not be limited to AHPs with high AI literacy as clinicians across all knowledge levels can identify many opportunities for AI in health care.

Indexed as

Allied Health PersonnelArtificial IntelligenceAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionQueenslandSurveys and QuestionnairesAIallied healthartificial intelligenceAustraliachallengeclinical settingclinicianconfirmatory factor analysiscross sectionaldeliverydigital healthhealthcarehealth professionalhospitalimpactlinear regressionmedical professionalmHealthopportunityperceptionsurvey

Identifiers

PMID39753215
PMCPMC11730220

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.