ArticleBMJ public health2024
Acceptability of artificial intelligence in breast screening: focus groups with the screening-eligible population in England.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Adoption of artificial intelligence in primary health care: systematic synthesis of stakeholder perspectives.BMC primary care · 2026Pooled it
- Preferences for the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Screening in Australia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2025Trial
- Constructs Influencing Patient Perceptions of Use of AI in Medical Imaging Analysis: Systematic Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Patients' Perspectives on the Implementation of AI in Radiological Diagnostics: Focus Group Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Patient and Public Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Imaging and Clinical Decision-Making: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Determinants of the Public's Behavioral Intention to Adopt AI-Assisted Lung Cancer Screening: An Extended UTAUT Model Integrating Trust and Risk.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Acceptability of Using Artificial Intelligence in the National Health Service Breast Screening Program: A Randomized Online Survey of Screening-Eligible Women in England.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and breast cancer screening in Serbia: a dual-perspective qualitative study among radiologists and screening-aged women.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Article
- Women's perspectives on integrating artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening services in Abu Dhabi, united Arab Emirates.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Noninvasive Breast Cancer Screening Strategies Supported by AI-Based Technologies in Resource-Limited Settings: Is It the Best Opportunity to Strengthen Women's Preferences, Values and Acceptability?Health care science · 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: Preliminary studies of artificial intelligence (AI) tools developed to support breast screening demonstrate the potential to reduce radiologist burden and improve cancer detection which could lead to improved breast cancer outcomes. This study explores the public acceptability of the use of AI in breast screening from the perspective of screening-eligible women in England. Methods: 64 women in England, aged 50-70 years (eligible for breast screening) and 45-49 years (approaching eligibility), participated in 12 focus groups-8 online and 4 in person. Specific scenarios in which AI may be used in the mammogram reading process were presented. Data were analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Four themes described public perceptions of AI in breast screening found in this study: (1) Conclusions: It will be essential that future decision-making and communication about AI implementation in breast screening (and, likely, in healthcare more widely) address concerns surrounding (1) the fallibility of AI, (2) lack of inclusion, control and transparency in relation to healthcare and technology decisions and (3) humans being left redundant and unneeded, while building on women's hopes for the technology.
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.