ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Understanding Public Judgements on Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Dialogue Group Findings From Australia.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere is a rapidly increasing number of applications of healthcare artificial intelligence (HCAI). Alongside this, a new field of research is investigating public support for HCAI. We conducted a study to identify the conditions on Australians' support for HCAI, with an emphasis on identifying the instances where using AI in healthcare systems was seen as acceptable or unacceptable.
methodsWe conducted eight dialogue groups with 47 Australians, aiming for diversity in age, gender, working status, and experience with information and communication technologies. The moderators encouraged participants to discuss the reasons and conditions for their support for AI in health care.
resultsMost participants were conditionally supportive of HCAI. The participants felt strongly that AI should be developed, implemented and controlled with patient interests in mind. They supported HCAI principally as an informational tool and hoped that it would empower people by enabling greater access to personalised information about their health. They were opposed to HCAI as a decision-making tool or as a replacement for physician-patient interaction.
conclusionOur findings indicate that Australians support HCAI as a tool that enhances rather than replaces human decision-making in health care. Australians value HCAI as an epistemic tool that can expand access to personalised health information but remain cautious about its use in clinical decision-making. Developers of HCAI tools should consider Australians' preferences for AI tools that provide epistemic resources, and their aversion to tools which make decisions autonomously, or replace interactions with their physicians. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the public were participants in this study. The participants made contributions by sharing their views and judgements.
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.