Utilizing Conversational Artificial Intelligence, Voice, and Phonocardiography Analytics in Heart Failure Care

Artificial intelligence and machine learning for clinical pharmacology

Artificial intelligence (AI) will impact many aspects of clinical pharmacology, including drug discovery and development, clinical trials, personalized medicine, pharmacogenomics, pharmacovigilance and clinical toxicology. The rapid progress of AI in healthcare means clinical pharmacologists should have an understanding of AI and its implementation in clinical practice. As with any new therapy or health technology, it is imperative that AI tools are subject to robust and stringent evaluation to ensure that they enhance clinical practice in a safe and equitable manner. This review serves as an introduction to AI for the clinical pharmacologist, highlighting current applications, aspects of model development and issues surrounding evaluation and deployment. The aim of this article is to empower clinical pharmacologists to embrace and lead on the safe and effective use of AI within healthcare.

Analyzing the determinants to accept a virtual assistant and use cases among cancer patients: a mixed methods study

Background

Technological progress in artificial intelligence has led to the increasing popularity of virtual assistants, i.e., embodied or disembodied conversational agents that allow chatting with a technical system in a natural language. However, only little comprehensive research is conducted about patients' perceptions and possible applications of virtual assistant in healthcare with cancer patients. This research aims to investigate the key acceptance factors and value-adding use cases of a virtual assistant for patients diagnosed with cancer.

Methods

Qualitative interviews with eight former patients and four doctors of a Dutch radiotherapy institute were conducted to determine what acceptance factors they find most important for a virtual assistant and gain insights into value-adding applications. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) was used to structure perceptions and was inductively modified as a result of the interviews. The subsequent research model was triangulated via an online survey with 127 respondents diagnosed with cancer. A structural equation model was used to determine the relevance of acceptance factors. Through a multigroup analysis, differences between sample subgroups were compared.

Results

The interviews found support for all factors of the UTAUT: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions. Additionally, self-efficacy, trust, and resistance to change, were added as an extension of the UTAUT. Former patients found a virtual assistant helpful in receiving information about logistic questions, treatment procedures, side effects, or scheduling appointments. The quantitative study found that the constructs performance expectancy (ß = 0.399), effort expectancy (ß = 0.258), social influence (ß = 0.114), and trust (ß = 0.210) significantly influenced behavioral intention to use a virtual assistant, explaining 80% of its variance. Self-efficacy (ß = 0.792) acts as antecedent of effort expectancy. Facilitating conditions and resistance to change were not found to have a significant relationship with user intention.

Conclusions

Performance and effort expectancy are the leading determinants of virtual assistant acceptance. The latter is dependent on a patient’s self-efficacy. Therefore, including patients during the development and introduction of a VA in cancer treatment is important. The high relevance of trust indicates the need for a reliable, secure service that should be promoted as such. Social influence suggests using doctors in endorsing the VA.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08189-7.