Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40705399›Full record

ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2025

Patient Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Focus Group Study for Diagnostic Communication and Tool Implementation.

Garrett Foresman, Joshua Biro, Alberta Tran, Kate MacRae, Sadaf Kazi, Laura Schubel, Adam Visconti, William Gallagher, Kelly M Smith, Traber Giardina and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Garrett ForesmanNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-9493-3471
Joshua BiroNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7362-4138
Alberta TranInstitute for Quality and Safety, MedStar Health, Columbia, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9091-7036
Kate MacRaeSchool of Medicine, Georgetown University, 3700 O St NW, Washington, DC, 20057, United States, 1 5745276685.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1126-9796
Sadaf KaziNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7189-6989
Laura SchubelNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5258-1407
Adam ViscontiSchool of Medicine, Georgetown University, 3700 O St NW, Washington, DC, 20057, United States, 1 5745276685.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6257-1691
William GallagherSchool of Medicine, Georgetown University, 3700 O St NW, Washington, DC, 20057, United States, 1 5745276685.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-3659-9811
Kelly M SmithUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9483-5118
Traber GiardinaCenter for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9184-6524
Helen HaskellMothers Against Medical Error, Columbia, SC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2131-7907
Kristen MillerNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8991-2342

Funding

AHRQ HHS R18 HS029356
6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligenceco-designcommunicationdiagnostic safetypatient engagement

Identifiers

PMID40705399
PMCPMC12288699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.