ArticleBMC pediatrics2026
Children and adolescents' views on artificial intelligence in pediatric healthcare: a qualitative focus group study.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, including pediatrics, offers significant opportunities for improving quality, personalization, and effectiveness of care. Nevertheless, successful implementation of this approach in pediatric patients depends on their acceptance and the integration of their preferences regarding AI use within participatory decision-making. Since previous research insufficiently addresses the perspectives of children and adolescents on AI use in pediatric healthcare, the objective of this study was to address this research gap.
methodsThis qualitative study was conducted at the University Children's Hospital Duesseldorf, Germany, and in surrounding schools. Recruitment took place from March to September 2024. Semi-structured interviews including two scenarios were conducted: an AI-based application (1) for assessing the development of children and adolescents, (2) for supporting and monitoring children and adolescents with chronic conditions. Content analysis was used to evaluate information.
resultsEighteen focus group interviews with 58 participants (8-11 years = 10; 12-14 years = 23; 15-17 years = 25) were conducted. Nine key topics emerged: benefits, fears, dealing with misdiagnoses of AI, responsibility for data input and access, impact on the physician-patient relationship, the right not to know, transparency, data sources, and desired features. Participants repeatedly emphasized that AI should serve only as a supportive tool, with healthcare professionals retaining final authority and critically evaluating its findings. Key benefits included early detection of health anomalies and reduced diagnostic or human errors. Barriers to acceptance encompassed data privacy concerns, suspected lack of empathy, absence of physical examination, and risk of false diagnoses.
conclusionsThis qualitative study underlines, that the requirements, perceived benefits, and concerns of AI-based applications in pediatric healthcare are multifaceted and necessitate including minors in their development and implementation. Age-appropriate education on AI use, risks, limitations, opportunities and strengths is essential for acceptance. If possible, minors should be openly informed about the limitations of AI decision transparency, with underlying mechanisms explained where appropriate. At best, children and adolescents should already be involved in development of AI applications in terms of information and consent.
trial registrationThis study was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00034474; 17th June 2024).
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.