ArticleJMIR human factors2025
Exploring Perspectives of Health Care Professionals on AI in Palliative Care: Qualitative Interview Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attitudes and Needs of Health Care Providers Toward Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Pediatric Palliative Care: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Care of Terminally Ill Patients.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Attitudes, perceptions, and factors influencing the adoption of artificial intelligence Among healthcare professionals in Saudi Arabia: a UTAUT-based study.Frontiers in health services · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) methods in palliative care research is increasing. Most AI palliative care research involves the use of routinely collected data from electronic health records; however, there are few data on the views of palliative care health care professionals on the role of AI in practice. Determining the opinions of palliative care health care professionals on the potential uses of AI in palliative care will be useful for policymakers and practitioners to determine and inform the meaningful use of AI in palliative care practice.
objectiveThis study aimed to explore the views of palliative care health care professionals on the use of AI for the analysis of patient data in palliative care.
methodsThis was a phenomenological study using qualitative semistructured interviews with palliative care health care professionals with a minimum of 1 year of clinical experience in a hospice in the North West of England. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.
resultsWe interviewed 6 palliative care professionals, including physicians, nurses, and occupational therapists. AI was viewed positively, although most participants had not used it in practice. None of the participants had received training in AI and stated that education in AI would be beneficial. Participants described the potential benefits of AI in palliative care, including the identification of people requiring palliative care interventions and the evaluation of patient experiences. Participants highlighted security and ethical concerns regarding AI related to data governance, efficacy, patient confidentiality, and consent issues.
conclusionsThis study highlights the importance of staff perceptions of AI in palliative care. Our findings support the role of AI in enhancing care, addressing educational needs, and tackling trust, ethics, and governance issues. This study lays the groundwork for guidelines on AI implementation, urging further research on the methodological, ethical, and practical aspects of AI in palliative 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.