ArticleLearning health systems2025
Validating a novel measure for assessing patient openness and concerns about using artificial intelligence in healthcare.
Article in Learning health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Women's Perspectives on Receiving AI-Enabled Digital Support for Infant Feeding: Multimethods Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Development and validation of the Oxford Attitudes to Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Scale.JAAD international · 2026Article
- Available guidance for ethical challenges in learning health systems: an integrative literature review.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Validating a novel measure for assessing patient openness and concerns about using artificial intelligence in healthcare.Learning health systems · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Patient engagement is critical for the effective development and use of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled tools in learning health systems (LHSs). We adapted a previously validated measure from pediatrics to assess adults' openness and concerns about the use of AI in their healthcare. Study Design: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: We adapted the 33-item "Attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare for Parents" measure for administration to adults in the general US population (AAIH-A), recruiting participants through Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) crowdsourcing platform. AAIH-A assesses openness to AI-driven technologies and includes 7 subscales assessing participants' openness and concerns about these technologies. The openness scale includes examples of AI-driven tools for diagnosis, prediction, treatment selection, and medical guidance. Concern subscales assessed privacy, social justice, quality, human element of care, cost, shared decision-making, and convenience. We co-administered previously validated measures hypothesized to correlate with openness. We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis and assessed reliability and construct validity. We performed exploratory multivariable regression models to identify predictors of openness. Results: A total of 379 participants completed the survey. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the seven dimensions of the concerns, and the scales had internal consistency reliability, and correlated as hypothesized with existing measures of trust and faith in technology. Multivariable models indicated that trust in technology and concerns about quality and convenience were significantly associated with openness. Conclusions: The AAIH-A is a brief measure that can be used to assess adults' perspectives about AI-driven technologies in healthcare and LHSs. The use of AAIH-A can inform future development and implementation of AI-enabled tools for patient care in the LHS context that engage patients as key stakeholders.
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.