Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40884416›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025

Developing a Typology of Women's Attitudes Towards AI Use in the BreastScreen Programme-A Qualitative Study With BreastScreen Victoria Clients.

Maho Omori, Prabhathi Basnayake, Louise Keogh, Helen M L Frazer, Katrina Kunicki, Jocelyn F Lippey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Developing a Typology of Women's Attitudes Towards AI Use in the BreastScreen Programme-A Qualitative Study With BreastScreen Victoria Clients.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
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

6 authors.

Maho OmoriBreastScreen Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1316-5560
Prabhathi BasnayakeMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Louise KeoghMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Helen M L FrazerBreastScreen Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Katrina KunickiSt Vincent's Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jocelyn F LippeySt Vincent's BreastScreen, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

This study has been funded by the Australian Government Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) (MRFAI000090) for the Transforming Breast Cancer Screening with Artificial Intelligence (BRAIx) Project awarded to Helen M. L. Frazer and Jocelyn F. Lippey.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing scientific evidence supporting the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance breast cancer screening by improving the accuracy and efficiency of mammography interpretation. Aligned with this, several empirical studies, predominantly quantitative, have explored lay women's perceptions of AI in breast screening, often framing attitudes in binary terms-positive or negative. This approach can overlook the complexity and nuance of women's views.

aimThis article aims to unpack that complexity by developing a typology of women's attitudes towards the use of AI in the breast screening service. It builds on Birkland's (2019) information and communication technology (ICT) user typology among older adults and further explores the relationship between the attitude types and varying levels of AI acceptability.

methodAdopting an interpretative qualitative research approach, we conducted a combination of focus groups, paired interviews and one-on-one interviews with 26 women who had participated in the BreastScreen programme in Victoria, Australia. Data were thematically analysed using inductive coding.

findingsThe analysis identified four attitude types-Enthusiast, Practicalist, Traditionalist and Guardian. Each type reflected unique motivations and experiences that shaped each participant's acceptance and rejection of AI. Most participants were classified as either Enthusiasts or Practicalists, indicating a generally high or moderate level of AI acceptance. Enthusiasts viewed AI as an exciting and necessary progression, and Practicalists valued its practical utility as a useful tool. Both groups shared the belief that AI represents the future of healthcare, underpinned by technological advancement. Traditionalists, on the other hand, expressed a preference for the status quo, advocating for the exclusive role of human doctors. Guardians typically had higher levels of AI knowledge and advocated for a cautious approach, citing social and ethical concerns about AI integration.

conclusionThe typology illustrates that the BreastScreen Victoria clients' attitudes towards AI are more nuanced and dynamic than a simple positive-negative dichotomy. Recognising these perspectives is critical for designing AI implementation strategies that are sensitive to the needs and concerns of care recipients. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was shaped by extensive stakeholder engagement with BreastScreen Victoria and its consumer representatives from the outset. Research materials were collaboratively developed and reviewed, ensuring the study design was fit-for-purpose.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyPatient Acceptance of Health CareAgedAged, 80 and overAttitudeFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchVictoriaan AI attitude typologyartificial intelligence (AI)breast cancer screeningqualitative researchwomen's attitudes

Identifiers

PMID40884416
PMCPMC12397983

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.