ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Artificial intelligence in healthcare: a qualitative study exploring consumer perspectives.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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.
- Implementing computer‑aided detection for TB active case finding: A qualitative study of feasibility and acceptability in Tondo, Manila.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) holds significant promise for healthcare, yet its real-world adoption remains limited, partly due to uncertainty about healthcare consumer acceptance. While existing ethical frameworks provide high-level principles, there remains a need to understand healthcare consumer perspectives to ensure AI integration reflects their values and preferences. This study addresses the question: What are healthcare consumers' perspectives on AI in healthcare?
methodsA cross-sectional qualitative research study involving online focus groups was conducted in April 2025. Participants were self-selecting adult healthcare consumers or caregivers who had accessed public healthcare in Queensland, Australia in the preceding 24 months. Analysis was guided by the World Health Organisation (WHO) ethical principles, combining deductive classifications with inductive thematic analysis. Themes were refined through consensus.
resultsConsumers' perspectives on AI in healthcare were captured in 19 themes across all six WHO principles. The most frequently discussed principles were inclusiveness and equity (Principle 5, five themes) and transparency, explainability, and intelligibility (Principle 3, four themes). Participants emphasised the need for clear communication, equity, transparency and preservation of human interaction in clinical care.
conclusionsSustaining healthcare consumers trust and upholding traditional healthcare values by ensuring human connection in healthcare are critical for successful AI integration. Insights from this study, combined with existing evidence, can inform the future development of a values-based framework and social licence to guide safe, ethical and consumer-centred implementation of AI in healthcare.
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.