ArticleBMC health services research2026
Patient and staff acceptability of an artificial intelligence software to prioritize chest X-rays in an NHS setting: a qualitative evaluation.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChest X-rays (CXRs) remain the first-line investigation in the lung cancer (LC) diagnostic pathway; however, the time from the original referral for CXR to computed tomography (CT) and respiratory review can currently take several weeks for outpatients. Qure.ai's 'qXR' software can be utilized to speed up the detection of LC by flagging abnormalities in CXRs for priority reporting, has the potential to enable outpatient CT imaging within 72 h of CXR and reduce the time from referral to reported CT by several weeks. A qualitative evaluation with a longitudinal aspect was designed to provide an in-depth understanding of the acceptability and behavioral impact of the software from the perspectives of both NHS staff and service users.
methodsRepeat, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 NHS staff (radiologists, radiographers, and administrators) before and after implementation of the software in a Scottish NHS board. Eight NHS service users participated in focus groups to explore their experiences and attitudes toward the software. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability informed data collection; however, the data analysis employed an inductive thematic approach.
resultsStaff viewed the software as a useful adjunct and believed it could expedite LC pathways; service users perceived the potential for better care through earlier diagnosis and an accelerated pathway to treatment. The radiology staff raised concerns about the software's accuracy and interpretations, as well as the potential for complacency and biased decision-making. Staff perceived that the change in the patient pathway performed better than anticipated, and service users voiced a preference for short-term anxiety with prompt action (AI pathway) to prolonged uncertainty (standard pathway).
conclusionsThis study identified key facilitators of and barriers to the acceptability of AI software for prioritizing CXRs. There is support for AI-assisted CXR assessment, provided that it improves patient outcomes and is used in conjunction with clinicians. A hierarchy of confidence in the software's performance significantly impacted the experienced acceptability of the technology. To support stable, long-term adoption, AI software must integrate easily into existing systems, perform accurately, and not disrupt practice or negatively impact patient pathways.
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.