Conditionally positive: a qualitative study of public perceptions about using health data for artificial intelligence research

Facilitating public involvement in research about healthcare AI: A scoping review of empirical methods

OBJECTIVE

With the recent increase in research into public views on healthcare artificial intelligence (HCAI), the objective of this review is to examine the methods of empirical studies on public views on HCAI. We map how studies provided participants with information about HCAI, and we examine the extent to which studies framed publics as active contributors to HCAI governance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched 5 academic databases and Google Advanced for empirical studies investigating public views on HCAI. We extracted information including study aims, research instruments, and recommendations.

RESULTS

Sixty-two studies were included. Most were quantitative (N = 42). Most (N = 47) reported providing participants with background information about HCAI. Despite this, studies often reported participants' lack of prior knowledge about HCAI as a limitation. Over three quarters (N = 48) of the studies made recommendations that envisaged public views being used to guide governance of AI.

DISCUSSION

Provision of background information is an important component of facilitating research with publics on HCAI. The high proportion of studies reporting participants' lack of knowledge about HCAI as a limitation reflects the need for more guidance on how information should be presented. A minority of studies adopted technocratic positions that construed publics as passive beneficiaries of AI, rather than as active stakeholders in HCAI design and implementation.

CONCLUSION

This review draws attention to how public roles in HCAI governance are constructed in empirical studies. To facilitate active participation, we recommend that research with publics on HCAI consider methodological designs that expose participants to diverse information sources.

Women's perceptions and attitudes towards the use of AI in mammography in Sweden: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Understanding women's perspectives can help to create an effective and acceptable artificial intelligence (AI) implementation for triaging mammograms, ensuring a high proportion of screening-detected cancer. This study aimed to explore Swedish women's perceptions and attitudes towards the use of AI in mammography.

METHOD

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 16 women recruited in the spring of 2023 at Capio S:t Görans Hospital, Sweden, during an ongoing clinical trial of AI in screening (ScreenTrustCAD, NCT04778670) with Philips equipment. The interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

In general, women viewed AI as an excellent complementary tool to help radiologists in their decision-making, rather than a complete replacement of their expertise. To trust the AI, the women requested a thorough evaluation, transparency about AI usage in healthcare, and the involvement of a radiologist in the assessment. They would rather be more worried because of being called in more often for scans than risk having overlooked a sign of cancer. They expressed substantial trust in the healthcare system if the implementation of AI was to become a standard practice.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that the interviewed women, in general, hold a positive attitude towards the implementation of AI in mammography; nonetheless, they expect and demand more from an AI than a radiologist. Effective communication regarding the role and limitations of AI is crucial to ensure that patients understand the purpose and potential outcomes of AI-assisted healthcare.

Multi-stakeholder preferences for the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A systematic review and thematic analysis

INTRODUCTION

Despite the proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology over the last decade, clinician, patient, and public perceptions of its use in healthcare raise a number of ethical, legal and social questions. We systematically review the literature on attitudes towards the use of AI in healthcare from patients, the general public and health professionals' perspectives to understand these issues from multiple perspectives.

METHODOLOGY

A search for original research articles using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods published between 1 Jan 2001 to 24 Aug 2021 was conducted on six bibliographic databases. Data were extracted and classified into different themes representing views on: (i) knowledge and familiarity of AI, (ii) AI benefits, risks, and challenges, (iii) AI acceptability, (iv) AI development, (v) AI implementation, (vi) AI regulations, and (vii) Human - AI relationship.

RESULTS

The final search identified 7,490 different records of which 105 publications were selected based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. While the majority of patients, the general public and health professionals generally had a positive attitude towards the use of AI in healthcare, all groups indicated some perceived risks and challenges. Commonly perceived risks included data privacy; reduced professional autonomy; algorithmic bias; healthcare inequities; and greater burnout to acquire AI-related skills. While patients had mixed opinions on whether healthcare workers suffer from job loss due to the use of AI, health professionals strongly indicated that AI would not be able to completely replace them in their professions. Both groups shared similar doubts about AI's ability to deliver empathic care. The need for AI validation, transparency, explainability, and patient and clinical involvement in the development of AI was emphasised. To help successfully implement AI in health care, most participants envisioned that an investment in training and education campaigns was necessary, especially for health professionals. Lack of familiarity, lack of trust, and regulatory uncertainties were identified as factors hindering AI implementation. Regarding AI regulations, key themes included data access and data privacy. While the general public and patients exhibited a willingness to share anonymised data for AI development, there remained concerns about sharing data with insurance or technology companies. One key domain under this theme was the question of who should be held accountable in the case of adverse events arising from using AI.

CONCLUSIONS

While overall positivity persists in attitudes and preferences toward AI use in healthcare, some prevalent problems require more attention. There is a need to go beyond addressing algorithm-related issues to look at the translation of legislation and guidelines into practice to ensure fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in AI.

Knowledge and Perception of the Use of AI and its Implementation in the Field of Radiology: Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been developing for decades, but in recent years its use in the field of health care has experienced an exponential increase. Currently, there is little doubt that these tools have transformed clinical practice. Therefore, it is important to know how the population perceives its implementation to be able to propose strategies for acceptance and implementation and to improve or prevent problems arising from future applications.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to describe the population's perception and knowledge of the use of AI as a health support tool and its application to radiology through a validated questionnaire, in order to develop strategies aimed at increasing acceptance of AI use, reducing possible resistance to change and identifying possible sociodemographic factors related to perception and knowledge.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted using an anonymous and voluntarily validated questionnaire aimed at the entire population of Catalonia aged 18 years or older. The survey addresses 4 dimensions defined to describe users' perception of the use of AI in radiology, (1) "distrust and accountability," (2) "personal interaction," (3) "efficiency," and (4) "being informed," all with questions in a Likert scale format. Results closer to 5 refer to a negative perception of the use of AI, while results closer to 1 express a positive perception. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to assess possible associations between the 4 dimensions and sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 379 users responded to the survey, with an average age of 43.9 (SD 17.52) years and 59.8% (n=226) of them identified as female. In addition, 89.8% (n=335) of respondents indicated that they understood the concept of AI. Of the 4 dimensions analyzed, "distrust and accountability" obtained a mean score of 3.37 (SD 0.53), "personal interaction" obtained a mean score of 4.37 (SD 0.60), "efficiency" obtained a mean score of 3.06 (SD 0.73) and "being informed" obtained a mean score of 3.67 (SD 0.57). In relation to the "distrust and accountability" dimension, women, people older than 65 years, the group with university studies, and the population that indicated not understanding the AI concept had significantly more distrust in the use of AI. On the dimension of "being informed," it was observed that the group with university studies rated access to information more positively and those who indicated not understanding the concept of AI rated it more negatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the sample investigated reported being familiar with the concept of AI, with varying degrees of acceptance of its implementation in radiology. It is clear that the most conflictive dimension is "personal interaction," whereas "efficiency" is where there is the greatest acceptance, being the dimension in which there are the best expectations for the implementation of AI in radiology.

The Learning Electronic Health Record

Electronic medical records (EMRs) constitute the electronic version of all medical information included in a patient's paper chart. The electronic health record (EHR) technology has witnessed massive expansion in developed countries and to a lesser extent in underresourced countries during the last 2 decades. We will review factors leading to this expansion, how the emergence of EHRs is affecting several health-care stakeholders; some of the growing pains associated with EHRs with a particular emphasis on the delivery of care to the critically ill; and ongoing developments on the path to improve the quality of research, health-care delivery, and stakeholder satisfaction.

Patients' Views on AI for Risk Prediction in Shared Decision-Making for Knee Replacement Surgery: Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in decision-making around knee replacement surgery is increasing, and this technology holds promise to improve the prediction of patient outcomes. Ambiguity surrounds the definition of AI, and there are mixed views on its application in clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to explore the understanding and attitudes of patients who underwent knee replacement surgery regarding AI in the context of risk prediction for shared clinical decision-making.

METHODS

This qualitative study involved patients who underwent knee replacement surgery at a tertiary referral center for joint replacement surgery. The participants were selected based on their age and sex. Semistructured interviews explored the participants' understanding of AI and their opinions on its use in shared clinical decision-making. Data collection and reflexive thematic analyses were conducted concurrently. Recruitment continued until thematic saturation was achieved.

RESULTS

Thematic saturation was achieved with 19 interviews and confirmed with 1 additional interview, resulting in 20 participants being interviewed (female participants: n=11, 55%; male participants: n=9, 45%; median age: 66 years). A total of 11 (55%) participants had a substantial postoperative complication. Three themes captured the participants' understanding of AI and their perceptions of its use in shared clinical decision-making. The theme Expectations captured the participants' views of themselves as individuals with the right to self-determination as they sought therapeutic solutions tailored to their circumstances, needs, and desires, including whether to use AI at all. The theme Empowerment highlighted the potential of AI to enable patients to develop realistic expectations and equip them with personalized risk information to discuss in shared decision-making conversations with the surgeon. The theme Partnership captured the importance of symbiosis between AI and clinicians because AI has varied levels of interpretability and understanding of human emotions and empathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent knee replacement surgery in this study had varied levels of familiarity with AI and diverse conceptualizations of its definitions and capabilities. Educating patients about AI through nontechnical explanations and illustrative scenarios could help inform their decision to use it for risk prediction in the shared decision-making process with their surgeon. These findings could be used in the process of developing a questionnaire to ascertain the views of patients undergoing knee replacement surgery on the acceptability of AI in shared clinical decision-making. Future work could investigate the accuracy of this patient group's understanding of AI, beyond their familiarity with it, and how this influences their acceptance of its use. Surgeons may play a key role in finding a place for AI in the clinical setting as the uptake of this technology in health care continues to grow.

How do patients perceive the AI-radiologists interaction? Results of a survey on 2119 responders

PURPOSE

In this study we investigate how patients perceive the interaction between artificial intelligence (AI) and radiologists by designing a survey.

METHOD

We created a survey focused on the application of Artificial Intelligence in radiology which consisted of 20 questions distributed in three sections:Only completed questionnaires were considered for analysis.

RESULTS

2119 subjects completed the survey. Among them, 1216 respondents were over 60 years old, showing interest in AI even though they were not digital natives. Although >45% of the respondents reported a high level of education, only 3% said they were AI experts. 87% of respondents favored using AI to support diagnosis but would like to be informed. Only 10% would consult another specialist if their doctor used AI support. Most respondents (76%) said they would not feel comfortable if the diagnosis was made by the AI alone, highlighting the importance of the physician's role in the emotional management of the patient. Finally, 36% of respondents were willing to discuss the topic further in a focus group.

CONCLUSION

Patients' perception of the use of AI in radiology was positive, although still strictly linked to the supervision of the radiologist. Respondents showed interest and willingness to learn more about AI in the medical field, confirming how patients' confidence in AI technology and its acceptance is central to its widespread use in clinical practice.

Perspectives of Youths on the Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care Research and Clinical Care

Importance

Understanding the views and values of patients is of substantial importance to developing the ethical parameters of artificial intelligence (AI) use in medicine. Thus far, there is limited study on the views of children and youths. Their perspectives contribute meaningfully to the integration of AI in medicine.

Objective

To explore the moral attitudes and views of children and youths regarding research and clinical care involving health AI at the point of care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative study recruited participants younger than 18 years during a 1-year period (October 2021 to March 2022) at a large urban pediatric hospital. A total of 44 individuals who were receiving or had previously received care at a hospital or rehabilitation clinic contacted the research team, but 15 were found to be ineligible. Of the 29 who consented to participate, 1 was lost to follow-up, resulting in 28 participants who completed the interview.

Exposures

Participants were interviewed using vignettes on 3 main themes: (1) health data research, (2) clinical AI trials, and (3) clinical use of AI.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Thematic description of values surrounding health data research, interventional AI research, and clinical use of AI.

Results

The 28 participants included 6 children (ages, 10-12 years) and 22 youths (ages, 13-17 years) (16 female, 10 male, and 3 trans/nonbinary/gender diverse). Mean (SD) age was 15 (2) years. Participants were highly engaged and quite knowledgeable about AI. They expressed a positive view of research intended to help others and had strong feelings about the uses of their health data for AI. Participants expressed appreciation for the vulnerability of potential participants in interventional AI trials and reinforced the importance of respect for their preferences regardless of their decisional capacity. A strong theme for the prospective use of clinical AI was the desire to maintain bedside interaction between the patient and their physician.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, children and youths reported generally positive views of AI, expressing strong interest and advocacy for their involvement in AI research and inclusion of their voices for shared decision-making with AI in clinical care. These findings suggest the need for more engagement of children and youths in health care AI research and integration.

The ethical matrix as a method for involving people living with disease and the wider public (PPI) in near-term artificial intelligence research

INTRODUCTION

The rapid pace of research in the field of Artificial Intelligence in medicine has associated risks for near-term AI. Ethical considerations of the use of AI in medicine remain a subject of much debate. Concurrently, the Involvement of People living with disease and the Public (PPI) in research is becoming mandatory in the EU and UK. The goal of this research was to elucidate the important values for our relevant stakeholders: People with MS, Radiologists, neurologists, Registered Healthcare Practitioners and Computer Scientists concerning AI in radiology and synthesize these in an ethical matrix.

METHODS

An ethical matrix workshop co-designed with a patient expert. The workshop yielded a survey which was disseminated to the professional societies of the relevant stakeholders. Quantitative data were analysed using the Pingouin 0.53 python package. Qualitative data were examined with word frequency analysis and analysed for themes with grounded theory with a patient expert.

RESULTS

184 participants were recruited, (54, 60, 17, 12, 41 respectively). There were significant (p < 0.00001) differences in age, gender and ethnicity between groups. Key themes emerging from our results were the importance fast and accurate results, explanations over model performance and the significance of maintaining personal connections and choice. These themes were used to construct the ethical matrix.

CONCLUSION

The ethical matrix is a useful tool for PPI and stakeholder engagement with particular advantages for near-term AI in the pandemic era.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

We have produced an ethical matrix that allows for the inclusion of stakeholder opinion in medical AI research design.

Public perceptions on the application of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a qualitative meta-synthesis

OBJECTIVES

Medical artificial intelligence (AI) has been used widely applied in clinical field due to its convenience and innovation. However, several policy and regulatory issues such as credibility, sharing of responsibility and ethics have raised concerns in the use of AI. It is therefore necessary to understand the general public's views on medical AI. Here, a meta-synthesis was conducted to analyse and summarise the public's understanding of the application of AI in the healthcare field, to provide recommendations for future use and management of AI in medical practice.

DESIGN

This was a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.

METHOD

A search was performed on the following databases to identify studies published in English and Chinese: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of science, Cochrane library, Embase, PsycINFO, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP. The search was conducted from database inception to 25 December 2021. The meta-aggregation approach of JBI was used to summarise findings from qualitative studies, focusing on the public's perception of the application of AI in healthcare.

RESULTS

Of the 5128 studies screened, 12 met the inclusion criteria, hence were incorporated into analysis. Three synthesised findings were used as the basis of our conclusions, including advantages of medical AI from the public's perspective, ethical and legal concerns about medical AI from the public's perspective, and public suggestions on the application of AI in medical field.

CONCLUSION

Results showed that the public acknowledges the unique advantages and convenience of medical AI. Meanwhile, several concerns about the application of medical AI were observed, most of which involve ethical and legal issues. The standard application and reasonable supervision of medical AI is key to ensuring its effective utilisation. Based on the public's perspective, this analysis provides insights and suggestions for health managers on how to implement and apply medical AI smoothly, while ensuring safety in healthcare practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022315033.

Exploring Stakeholder Requirements to Enable the Research and Development of Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in a Hospital-Based Generic Infrastructure: Protocol for a Multistep Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

In recent years, research and developments in advancing artificial intelligence (AI) in health care and medicine have increased. High expectations surround the use of AI technologies, such as improvements for diagnosis and increases in the quality of care with reductions in health care costs. The successful development and testing of new AI algorithms require large amounts of high-quality data. Academic hospitals could provide the data needed for AI development, but granting legal, controlled, and regulated access to these data for developers and researchers is difficult. Therefore, the German Federal Ministry of Health supports the Protected Artificial Intelligence Innovation Environment for Patient-Oriented Digital Health Solutions for Developing, Testing, and Evidence-Based Evaluation of Clinical Value (pAItient) project, aiming to install the AI Innovation Environment at the Heidelberg University Hospital in Germany. The AI Innovation Environment was designed as a proof-of-concept extension of the already existing Medical Data Integration Center. It will establish a process to support every step of developing and testing AI-based technologies.

OBJECTIVE

The first part of the pAItient project, as presented in this research protocol, aims to explore stakeholders' requirements for developing AI in partnership with an academic hospital and granting AI experts access to anonymized personal health data.

METHODS

We planned a multistep mixed methods approach. In the first step, researchers and employees from stakeholder organizations were invited to participate in semistructured interviews. In the following step, questionnaires were developed based on the participants' answers and distributed among the stakeholders' organizations to quantify qualitative findings and discover important aspects that were not mentioned by the interviewees. The questionnaires will be analyzed descriptively. In addition, patients and physicians were interviewed as well. No survey questionnaires were developed for this second group of participants. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Heidelberg University Hospital (approval number: S-241/2021).

RESULTS

Data collection concluded in summer 2022. Data analysis is planned to start in fall 2022. We plan to publish the results in winter 2022 to 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study will help in shaping the AI Innovation Environment at our academic hospital according to stakeholder requirements. With this approach, in turn, we aim to shape an AI environment that is effective and is deemed acceptable by all parties.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/42208.

Patients and Members of the Public’s Wishes Regarding Transparency in the Context of Secondary Use of Health Data: A Scoping Review (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Secondary use of health data has reached unequaled potential to improve health systems governance, knowledge, and clinical care. Transparency regarding this secondary use is frequently cited as necessary to address deficits in trust and conditional support and to increase patient awareness.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to review the current published literature to identify different stakeholders' perspectives and recommendations on what information patients and members of the public want to learn about the secondary use of health data for research purposes and how and in which situations.

METHODS

Using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted a scoping review using Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases to locate a broad range of studies published in English or French until November 2022. We included articles reporting a stakeholder's perspective or recommendations of what information patients and members of the public want to learn about the secondary use of health data for research purposes and how or in which situations. Data were collected and analyzed with an iterative thematic approach using NVivo.

RESULTS

Overall, 178 articles were included in this scoping review. The type of information can be divided into generic and specific content. Generic content includes information on governance and regulatory frameworks, technical aspects, and scientific aims. Specific content includes updates on the use of one's data, return of results from individual tests, information on global results, information on data sharing, and how to access one's data. Recommendations on how to communicate the information focused on frequency, use of various supports, formats, and wording. Methods for communication generally favored broad approaches such as nationwide publicity campaigns, mainstream and social media for generic content, and mixed approaches for specific content including websites, patient portals, and face-to-face encounters. Content should be tailored to the individual as much as possible with regard to length, avoidance of technical terms, cultural competence, and level of detail. Finally, the review outlined 4 major situations where communication was deemed necessary: before a new use of data, when new test results became available, when global research results were released, and in the advent of a breach in confidentiality.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights how different types of information and approaches to communication efforts may serve as the basis for achieving greater transparency. Governing bodies could use the results: to elaborate or evaluate strategies to educate on the potential benefits; to provide some knowledge and control over data use as a form of reciprocity; and as a condition to engage citizens and build and maintain trust. Future work is needed to assess which strategies achieve the greatest outreach while striking a balance between meeting information needs and use of resources.

Artificial intelligence-informed mobile mental health apps for young people: a mixed-methods approach on users' and stakeholders' perspectives

BACKGROUND

Novel approaches in mobile mental health (mHealth) apps that make use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Ecological Momentary Assessments, and Ecological Momentary Interventions have the potential to support young people in the achievement of mental health and wellbeing goals. However, little is known on the perspectives of young people and mental health experts on this rapidly advancing technology. This study aims to investigate the subjective needs, attitudes, and preferences of key stakeholders towards an AI-informed mHealth app, including young people and experts on mHealth promotion and prevention in youth.

METHODS

We used a convergent parallel mixed-method study design. Two semi-structured online focus groups (n = 8) and expert interviews (n = 5) to explore users and stakeholders perspectives were conducted. Furthermore a representative online survey was completed by young people (n = 666) to investigate attitudes, current use and preferences towards apps for mental health promotion and prevention.

RESULTS

Survey results show that more than two-thirds of young people have experience with mHealth apps, and 60% make regular use of 1-2 apps. A minority (17%) reported to feel negative about the application of AI in general, and 19% were negative about the embedding of AI in mHealth apps. This is in line with qualitative findings, where young people displayed rather positive attitudes towards AI and its integration into mHealth apps. Participants reported pragmatic attitudes towards data sharing and safety practices, implying openness to share data if it adds value for users and if the data request is not too intimate, however demanded transparency of data usage and control over personalization. Experts perceived AI-informed mHealth apps as a complementary solution to on-site delivered interventions in future health promotion among young people. Experts emphasized opportunities in regard with low-threshold access through the use of smartphones, and the chance to reach young people in risk situations.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this exploratory study highlight the importance of further participatory development of training components prior to implementation of a digital mHealth training in routine practice of mental health promotion and prevention. Our results may help to guide developments based on stakeholders' first recommendations for an AI-informed mHealth app.

Exploring Stakeholder Requirements to enable research and development of AI algorithms in a hospital based generic infrastructure: Results of a Multi-step mixed-methods Study (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Legal, controlled, and regulated access to high-quality data from academic hospitals currently poses a barrier to the development and testing of new artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. To overcome this barrier, the German Federal Ministry of Health supports the "pAItient" (Protected Artificial Intelligence Innovation Environment for Patient Oriented Digital Health Solutions for developing, testing and evidence-based evaluation of clinical value) project, with the goal to establish an AI Innovation Environment at the Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany. It is designed as a proof-of-concept extension to the preexisting Medical Data Integration Center.

OBJECTIVE

The first part of the pAItient project aims to explore stakeholders' requirements for developing AI in partnership with an academic hospital and granting AI experts access to anonymized personal health data.

METHODS

We designed a multistep mixed methods approach. First, researchers and employees from stakeholder organizations were invited to participate in semistructured interviews. In the following step, questionnaires were developed based on the participants' answers and distributed among the stakeholders' organizations. In addition, patients and physicians were interviewed.

RESULTS

The identified requirements covered a wide range and were conflicting sometimes. Relevant patient requirements included adequate provision of necessary information for data use, clear medical objective of the research and development activities, trustworthiness of the organization collecting the patient data, and data should not be reidentifiable. Requirements of AI researchers and developers encompassed contact with clinical users, an acceptable user interface (UI) for shared data platforms, stable connection to the planned infrastructure, relevant use cases, and assistance in dealing with data privacy regulations. In a next step, a requirements model was developed, which depicts the identified requirements in different layers. This developed model will be used to communicate stakeholder requirements within the pAItient project consortium.

CONCLUSIONS

The study led to the identification of necessary requirements for the development, testing, and validation of AI applications within a hospital-based generic infrastructure. A requirements model was developed, which will inform the next steps in the development of an AI innovation environment at our institution. Results from our study replicate previous findings from other contexts and will add to the emerging discussion on the use of routine medical data for the development of AI applications.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/42208.

A Research Ethics Framework for the Clinical Translation of Healthcare Machine Learning

The application of artificial intelligence and machine learning (ML) technologies in healthcare have immense potential to improve the care of patients. While there are some emerging practices surrounding responsible ML as well as regulatory frameworks, the traditional role of research ethics oversight has been relatively unexplored regarding its relevance for clinical ML. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive research ethics framework that can apply to the systematic inquiry of ML research across its development cycle. The pathway consists of three stages: (1) exploratory, hypothesis-generating data access; (2) silent period evaluation; (3) prospective clinical evaluation. We connect each stage to its literature and ethical justification and suggest adaptations to traditional paradigms to suit ML while maintaining ethical rigor and the protection of individuals. This pathway can accommodate a multitude of research designs from observational to controlled trials, and the stages can apply individually to a variety of ML applications.

Perceptions and Needs of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care to Increase Adoption: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of health care service delivery. However, the perceptions and needs of such systems remain elusive, hindering efforts to promote AI adoption in health care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide an overview of the perceptions and needs of AI to increase its adoption in health care.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was conducted according to the 5-stage framework by Arksey and O'Malley. Articles that described the perceptions and needs of AI in health care were searched across nine databases: ACM Library, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, IEEE Xplore, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies that were published from inception until June 21, 2021. Articles that were not specific to AI, not research studies, and not written in English were omitted.

RESULTS

Of the 3666 articles retrieved, 26 (0.71%) were eligible and included in this review. The mean age of the participants ranged from 30 to 72.6 years, the proportion of men ranged from 0% to 73.4%, and the sample sizes for primary studies ranged from 11 to 2780. The perceptions and needs of various populations in the use of AI were identified for general, primary, and community health care; chronic diseases self-management and self-diagnosis; mental health; and diagnostic procedures. The use of AI was perceived to be positive because of its availability, ease of use, and potential to improve efficiency and reduce the cost of health care service delivery. However, concerns were raised regarding the lack of trust in data privacy, patient safety, technological maturity, and the possibility of full automation. Suggestions for improving the adoption of AI in health care were highlighted: enhancing personalization and customizability; enhancing empathy and personification of AI-enabled chatbots and avatars; enhancing user experience, design, and interconnectedness with other devices; and educating the public on AI capabilities. Several corresponding mitigation strategies were also identified in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

The perceptions and needs of AI in its use in health care are crucial in improving its adoption by various stakeholders. Future studies and implementations should consider the points highlighted in this study to enhance the acceptability and adoption of AI in health care. This would facilitate an increase in the effectiveness and efficiency of health care service delivery to improve patient outcomes and satisfaction.

Attitudes and perception of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A cross-sectional survey among patients

Objective

The attitudes about the usage of artificial intelligence in healthcare are controversial. Unlike the perception of healthcare professionals, the attitudes of patients and their companions have been of less interest so far. In this study, we aimed to investigate the perception of artificial intelligence in healthcare among this highly relevant group along with the influence of digital affinity and sociodemographic factors.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using a paper-based questionnaire with patients and their companions at a German tertiary referral hospital from December 2019 to February 2020. The questionnaire consisted of three sections examining (a) the respondents’ technical affinity, (b) their perception of different aspects of artificial intelligence in healthcare and (c) sociodemographic characteristics.

Results

From a total of 452 participants, more than 90% already read or heard about artificial intelligence, but only 24% reported good or expert knowledge. Asked on their general perception, 53.18% of the respondents rated the use of artificial intelligence in medicine as positive or very positive, but only 4.77% negative or very negative. The respondents denied concerns about artificial intelligence, but strongly agreed that artificial intelligence must be controlled by a physician. Older patients, women, persons with lower education and technical affinity were more cautious on the healthcare-related artificial intelligence usage.

Conclusions

German patients and their companions are open towards the usage of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Although showing only a mediocre knowledge about artificial intelligence, a majority rated artificial intelligence in healthcare as positive. Particularly, patients insist that a physician supervises the artificial intelligence and keeps ultimate responsibility for diagnosis and therapy.

Patient Perceptions on Data Sharing and Applying Artificial Intelligence to Health Care Data: Cross-sectional Survey

Background

Considerable research is being conducted as to how artificial intelligence (AI) can be effectively applied to health care. However, for the successful implementation of AI, large amounts of health data are required for training and testing algorithms. As such, there is a need to understand the perspectives and viewpoints of patients regarding the use of their health data in AI research.

Objective

We surveyed a large sample of patients for identifying current awareness regarding health data research, and for obtaining their opinions and views on data sharing for AI research purposes, and on the use of AI technology on health care data.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey with patients was conducted at a large multisite teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Data were collected on patient and public views about sharing health data for research and the use of AI on health data.

Results

A total of 408 participants completed the survey. The respondents had generally low levels of prior knowledge about AI. Most were comfortable with sharing health data with the National Health Service (NHS) (318/408, 77.9%) or universities (268/408, 65.7%), but far fewer with commercial organizations such as technology companies (108/408, 26.4%). The majority endorsed AI research on health care data (357/408, 87.4%) and health care imaging (353/408, 86.4%) in a university setting, provided that concerns about privacy, reidentification of anonymized health care data, and consent processes were addressed.

Conclusions

There were significant variations in the patient perceptions, levels of support, and understanding of health data research and AI. Greater public engagement levels and debates are necessary to ensure the acceptability of AI research and its successful integration into clinical practice in future.

Mapping research strands of ethics of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A bibliometric and content analysis

The growth of artificial intelligence in promoting healthcare is rapidly progressing. Notwithstanding its promising nature, however, AI in healthcare embodies certain ethical challenges as well. This research aims to delineate the most influential elements of scientific research on AI ethics in healthcare by conducting bibliometric, social network analysis, and cluster-based content analysis of scientific articles. Not only did the bibliometric analysis identify the most influential authors, countries, institutions, sources, and documents, but it also recognized four ethical concerns associated with 12 medical issues. These ethical categories are composed of normative, meta-ethics, epistemological and medical practice. The content analysis complemented this list of ethical categories and distinguished seven more ethical categories: ethics of relationships, medico-legal concerns, ethics of robots, ethics of ambient intelligence, patients' rights, physicians' rights, and ethics of predictive analytics. This analysis likewise identified 40 general research gaps in the literature and plausible future research strands. This analysis furthers conversations on the ethics of AI and associated emerging technologies such as nanotech and biotech in healthcare, hence, advances convergence research on the ethics of AI in healthcare. Practically, this research will provide a map for policymakers and AI engineers and scientists on what dimensions of AI-based medical interventions require stricter policies and guidelines and robust ethical design and development.

Public vs physician views of liability for artificial intelligence in health care

The growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care has raised questions about who should be held liable for medical errors that result from care delivered jointly by physicians and algorithms. In this survey study comparing views of physicians and the U.S. public, we find that the public is significantly more likely to believe that physicians should be held responsible when an error occurs during care delivered with medical AI, though the majority of both physicians and the public hold this view (66.0% vs 57.3%; P = .020). Physicians are more likely than the public to believe that vendors (43.8% vs 32.9%; P = .004) and healthcare organizations should be liable for AI-related medical errors (29.2% vs 22.6%; P = .05). Views of medical liability did not differ by clinical specialty. Among the general public, younger people are more likely to hold nearly all parties liable.

Women's attitudes to the use of AI image readers: a case study from a national breast screening programme

Background

Researchers and developers are evaluating the use of mammogram readers that use artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical settings.

Objectives

This study examines the attitudes of women, both current and future users of breast screening, towards the use of AI in mammogram reading.

Methods

We used a cross-sectional, mixed methods study design with data from the survey responses and focus groups. We researched in four National Health Service hospitals in England. There we approached female workers over the age of 18 years and their immediate friends and family. We collected 4096 responses.

Results

Through descriptive statistical analysis, we learnt that women of screening age (≥50 years) were less likely than women under screening age to use technology apps for healthcare advice (likelihood ratio=0.85, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89, p<0.001). They were also less likely than women under screening age to agree that AI can have a positive effect on society (likelihood ratio=0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95, p<0.001). However, they were more likely to feel positive about AI used to read mammograms (likelihood ratio=1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17, p=0.009).

Discussion and Conclusions

Women of screening age are ready to accept the use of AI in breast screening but are less likely to use other AI-based health applications. A large number of women are undecided, or had mixed views, about the use of AI generally and they remain to be convinced that it can be trusted.