Exploring Attitudes Toward AI-Based Contactless Sensors in Health Among Five Stakeholder Groups: Qualitative Study.

Background: The rapid rise of artificial intelligence-based contactless sensors (AI-CS) is expected to significantly transform how patients are measured, monitored, and understood through a versatile, noninvasive approach to data collection and health assessment. However, there is a lack of empirical research specifically focusing on AI-CS in health. Moreover, existing studies tend to focus on medical or patient perspectives, while neglecting other stakeholders such as researchers, political actors, or the general public. Objective: The study aims to provide an in-depth empirical ethical analysis and, through a multistakeholder approach, a uniquely comprehensive overview by addressing the research question: what are the attitudes of different stakeholders (patients, health care professionals, researchers, political stakeholders, and the general public) toward AI-CS and their applications in health? Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study with 104 participants using a semistructured interview guide. Interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with ATLAS.ti software (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH), following a 3-component model of feelings, thoughts, and behavioral aspects. Results: The results of the study provide an in-depth analysis of attitudes toward AI-CS in health among different stakeholders. Overall, the results show a high level of openness to AI-CS in health across all stakeholder groups. In terms of feelings and their correlation with behavioral aspects, 2 key trends emerged: first, greater experience and knowledge correlated with a reduced tendency to react emotionally. Second, participants with positive experiences with technologies were generally more open and positive toward contactless sensors. The combined findings on thoughts and behavioral aspects highlighted 3 key tensions-around contact(lessness) and the importance and ambivalence of touch, between protection and surveillance (particularly regarding path- and context-dependency) and between the benefits and challenges of unobtrusiveness (especially in relation to control and governance implications). In addition, the analysis revealed the need for information and consent about AI-CS and clarified possible technical implementations and fields of application. Conclusions: This study provides a comprehensive and empirically grounded ethical analysis of stakeholder attitudes toward AI-CS in health. The findings offer valuable guidance for the responsible development, implementation, and governance of AI-CS in health care contexts.