ArticleJMIR AI2025
Exploring Patient Participation in AI-Supported Health Care: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence-Supported Virtual Nursing at Home: A Systematic Review.Florence Nightingale journal of nursing · 2026Article
- Renal Clinical Study Participants Support Data Sharing and Use of Artificial Intelligence.Kidney international reports · 2026Article
- Determinants of Trust in Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Health-Related Decision-Making Among Adults in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- New perspectives from evidence to action - patient-centered evidence transformation in evidence-based nursing: a narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Medication Adherence: A National Assessment of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions Among Chronic Disease Patients in Jordan.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
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
backgroundThe introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) into health care has sparked discussions about its potential impact. Patients, as key stakeholders, will be at the forefront of interacting with and being impacted by AI. Given the ethical importance of patient-centered health care, patients must navigate how they engage with AI. However, integrating AI into clinical practice brings potential challenges, particularly in shared decision-making and ensuring patients remain active participants in their care. Whether AI-supported interventions empower or undermine patient participation depends largely on how these technologies are envisioned and integrated into practice.
objectiveThis study explores how patients and medical AI professionals perceive the patient's role and the factors shaping participation in AI-supported care.
methodsWe conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with 21 patients and 21 medical AI professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. We identified 3 themes to describe how patients and professionals describe factors that shape participation in AI-supported care.
resultsThe first theme explored the vision of AI as an unavoidable and potentially harmful force of change in health care. The second theme highlights how patients perceive limitations in their capabilities that may prevent them from meaningfully participating in AI-supported care. The third theme describes patients' adaptive responses, such as relying on experts or making value judgments leading to acceptance or rejection of AI-supported care.
conclusionsBoth external and internal preconceptions influence how patients and medical AI professionals perceive patient participation. Patients often internalize AI's complexity and inevitability as an obstacle to their active participation, leading them to feel they have little influence over its development. While some patients rely on doctors or see AI as something to accept or reject, these strategies risk placing them in a disempowering role as passive recipients of care. Without adequate education on their rights and possibilities, these responses may not be enough to position patients at the center of their care.
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.