ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2025
Patient Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Focus Group Study for Diagnostic Communication and Tool Implementation.
Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient Concerns Regarding Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis Based on Social Ecological Theory.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Ethical concerns and strategies for implementing artificial intelligence in healthcare: a review of empirical studies.BMC medical ethics · 2026Pooled it
- From digital bench to bedside: exaggerated risks, realistic expectations, and genuine challenges of medical AI.European radiology · 2026Article
- Patients' Perspectives on Applications of AI and Personalized Medicine in Life-Threatening Heart Disease: European Cross-Sectional Patient Questionnaire Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Effects of Type and Timing of Clinician-Facing AI Support on Patient Trust in Medical Consultations: 2 Vignette Experiments.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Integrating AI-Powered Chatbots Into Patient Education From the Perspectives of Patients, Caregivers, and Nurses: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Exploring attitudes and acceptance of artificial intelligence in multiple sclerosis from the patient perspective.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Patient Perspectives on AI-Drafted Electronic Portal Messages.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Article
- Constructs Influencing Patient Perceptions of Use of AI in Medical Imaging Analysis: Systematic Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Review
- The Third Presence in the Clinic Room: How Artificial Intelligence Is Reshaping the Clinical Encounter.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
- A scoping review of studies on secure messaging through patient portals: persistent challenges and potential solutions.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Article
- Examining developer perspectives on medical AI regulatory frameworks.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Designing a Carbohydrate Counting App for Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Usability Testing Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Patient Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Diabetes Self-Management: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Me, my doctor and AI: a qualitative interview study on patients' requirements for trustworthy use of AI-CDSS in ophthalmology.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- The double-edged sword of generative AI in dermatology: a multi-component cross-sectional study on physician burnout, patient satisfaction, and communication quality.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for predicting and preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes addressing bias and clinical translation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Ten years on: how far have we come in patient engagement in diagnosis?Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming health care, offering potential benefits in diagnosis, treatment, and workflow efficiency. However, limited research explores patient perspectives on AI, especially in its role in diagnosis and communication. This study examines patient perceptions of various AI applications, focusing on the diagnostic process and communication. Objective: This study aimed to examine patient perspectives on AI use in health care, particularly in diagnostic processes and communication, identifying key concerns, expectations, and opportunities to guide the development and implementation of AI tools. Methods: This study used a qualitative focus group methodology with co-design principles to explore patient and family member perspectives on AI in clinical practice. A single 2-hour session was conducted with 17 adult participants. The session included interactive activities and breakout sessions focused on five specific AI scenarios relevant to diagnosis and communication: (1) portal messaging, (2) radiology review, (3) digital scribe, (4) virtual human, and (5) decision support. The session was audio-recorded and transcribed, with facilitator notes and demographic questionnaires collected. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis by 2 independent researchers (GF and JB), with discrepancies resolved via consensus. Results: Participants reported varying comfort levels with AI applications contingent on the level of patient interaction, with digital scribe (average 4.24, range 2-5) and radiology review (average 4.00, range 2-5) being the highest, and virtual human (average 1.68, range 1-4) being the lowest. In total, five cross-cutting themes emerged: (1) validation (concerns about model reliability), (2) usability (impact on diagnostic processes), (3) transparency (expectations for disclosing AI usage), (4) opportunities (potential for AI to improve care), and (5) privacy (concerns about data security). Participants valued the co-design session and felt they had a significant say in the discussions. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of incorporating patient perspectives in the design and implementation of AI tools in health care. Transparency, human oversight, clear communication, and data privacy are crucial for patient trust and acceptance of AI in diagnostic processes. These findings inform strategies for individual clinicians, health care organizations, and policy makers to ensure responsible and patient-centered AI deployment in health 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.