ArticleDigital health
Bridging perspectives: Success factors for AI implementation in healthcare from healthcare professionals and AI experts.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare offers opportunities to transform patient care, improve efficiency, and support clinical decision-making. Yet, its implementation is hindered by technical, organizational, and collaborative challenges. This study explores the key success factors for sustainable AI adoption from the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and AI experts, with the aim of identifying alignments and gaps that influence collaboration and sustainability. Methods: Guided by the NASSS framework, semi-structured interviews were conducted with four HCPs and five AI experts with experience related to AI technologies in the healthcare sector. Thematic analysis was applied to examine stakeholder perspectives, focusing on gaps and alignments between stakeholders and identifying common patterns. Results: Transparency leading to trust was the most emphasized factor by both AI experts and HCPs. Alignments were also found in recognizing the importance of interorganizational cooperation, demand-side value, scope of use, usability, responsibility and redefining the roles. Gaps included challenges in cooperation with HCPs, misunderstandings between stakeholders and the need for interdisciplinary experts, insufficient training, concerns over data quality and privacy, and limited attention to usability. Based on the found patterns, a framework is proposed to strengthen collaboration between AI experts and HCPs, enabling effective and sustainable AI implementation in healthcare. Conclusion: This study extends the NASSS framework to a dual-stakeholder context, offering insights into the alignments and gaps between HCPs and AI experts. The proposed framework supports improved collaboration, guiding healthcare professionals, AI developers, and managers toward effective, sustainable AI implementation and fostering mutual understanding for successful 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.