ArticleInquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
Identifying Measurement Dimensions of Users' Benefit-Risk Perceptions of AI in Healthcare: A Scoping Review.
Article in Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare presents a double-edged nature, making systematic assessment of users' benefit-risk perceptions critical. However, a unified, multidimensional framework for such measurement is currently lacking. This review aims to systematically identify and synthesize existing measurement instruments for users' benefit-risk perceptions of AI in healthcare, and to propose an integrated framework based on the evidence. Guided by Arksey and O'Malley's 5-stage framework, we retrieved quantitative studies describing measurement dimensions for users' benefit-risk perceptions regarding AI in healthcare. The search covered 8 Chinese and English databases from their inception to December 6, 2025. Two reviewers independently performed study screening and data extraction, with subsequent synthesis and visual presentation of findings. Based on a synthesis of 49 eligible studies, we developed a measurement framework encompassing 5 benefit and 6 risk dimensions, where technological attributes often exhibit a dual nature. Current measurement instruments consistently emphasize functional benefits, cost benefits, and privacy risks across diverse healthcare contexts, user groups, and geographical regions. In contrast, social benefits and capability development risks generally receive less consideration. Furthermore, variations in instrument design are primarily reflected at the subdimension level. This framework extends classical technology acceptance theories. It provides a theoretical basis for standardized instrument development and offers guidance for the clinical implementation of AI in healthcare. Future research should explore how perceptions evolve with advancing AI maturity and clinical integration to support responsible adoption.
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.