ArticleDigital health
Adopting AI in medical ethics review: A configurational fsQCA study of practitioners' willingness.
Article in Digital health. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The rapid integration of AI in medical research necessitates that Research Ethics Committees (RECs) employ AI tools to oversee AI-driven studies. However, systematic research into the willingness of ethics review practitioners to adopt AI remains scarce. This study addresses this gap by investigating the determinants of AI adoption intentions among REC members and staff. Methods: Based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) frameworks, a context-adapted questionnaire was developed and distributed to 697 ethics review practitioners across 11 provinces in China. Yielding 516 valid responses. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) was applied to identify multiple configurational pathways to high AI adoption willingness and examine differences between the two practitioner groups. Results: The study established a theoretical framework for AI adoption willingness, integrating performance expectancy, perceived risk, social influence, facilitating conditions, technology anxiety, personal innovativeness. No single necessary condition for high adoption intention was identified, with all consistency scores falling below 0.9. For ethics committee members, seven pathways emerged across three models: social influence-driven, personal innovativeness-driven, and organization-technology synergy-driven (solution coverage=0.744). For ethics committee staff, eight pathways were identified, which were categorized into personal innovativeness-driven and organization-individual innovativeness synergy-driven (solution coverage = 0.753). Performance expectancy and personal innovativeness were core conditions in most pathways, their roles differed markedly between groups. Conclusion: This study constructs a theoretical model to examine AI adoption willingness among ethics review practitioners. Findings reveal that high adoption readiness emerges from multiple equifinal configurations rather than isolated factors. Ethics committee members require organizational empowerment and social influence, while staff motivation depends primarily on personal innovativeness. These divergent pathways provide suggest distinct implementation strategies: providing institutional safeguards for members while fostering individual innovativeness among staff. These insights will enhance AI-assisted ethics review and inform technology governance in similar healthcare contexts.
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.