Dataset Information

The use of artificial intelligence applications in medicine and the standard required for healthcare provider-patient briefings-an exploratory study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) are currently being funneled through legacy regulatory processes that are not adapted to the unique particularities of this new technology class. In the absence of adequate regulation of DHTs, the briefing of a patient by their healthcare provider (HCP) as a component of informed consent can present the last line of defense before potentially harmful technologies are employed on a patient.

Methods

This exploratory study utilizes a case vignette of a machine learning-based technology for the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease that is presented to a group of medical students, physicians, and bioethicists. What constitutes the necessary standard and content of the HCP-patient briefings is explored using a survey (N = 34). Whether participants actually provide a sufficient HCP-patient briefing is evaluated based on audio recordings.

Results and conclusions

We find that participants deem artificial intelligence use in medical context should be declared to patients and argue that the explanation should currently follow the standard required of other experimental procedures. Further, since our study provides indications that implementation of HCP-patient briefings lacks behind the identified standard, opportunities for incorporation of training on the use of DHTs into medical curricula and continuous training schedules should be considered.

SUBMITTER: Iqbal JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9806394 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The use of artificial intelligence applications in medicine and the standard required for healthcare provider-patient briefings-an exploratory study.

Iqbal Jeffrey David JD Christen Markus M

Digital health 20220101

<h4>Introduction</h4>Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) are currently being funneled through legacy regulatory processes that are not adapted to the unique particularities of this new technology class. In the absence of adequate regulation of DHTs, the briefing of a patient by their healthcare provider (HCP) as a component of informed consent can present the last line of defense before potentially harmful technologies are employed on a patient.<h4>Methods</h4>This exploratory study utilizes a ca ...[more]

PMID: 36601281

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe continuous integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical settings requires the development of up-to-date and robust guidelines and standard frameworks that consider the evolving challenges of AI implementation in medicine. This review evaluates the quality of these guideline and summarizes ethical frameworks, best practices, and recommendations.Materials and methodsThe Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II tool was used to assess the quality of guidelines based on 6 domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. The protocol of this review including the eligibility criteria, the search strategy data extraction sheet and methods, was published prior to the actual review with International Registered Report Identifier of DERR1-10.2196/47105.ResultsThe initial search resulted in 4975 studies from 2 databases and 7 studies from manual search. Eleven articles were selected for data extraction based on the eligibility criteria. We found that while guidelines generally excel in scope, purpose, and editorial independence, there is significant variability in applicability and the rigor of guideline development. Well-established initiatives such as TRIPOD+AI, DECIDE-AI, SPIRIT-AI, and CONSORT-AI have shown high quality, particularly in terms of stakeholder involvement. However, applicability remains a prominent challenge among the guidelines. The result also showed that the reproducibility, ethical, and environmental aspects of AI in medicine still need attention from both medical and AI communities.DiscussionOur work highlights the need for working toward the development of integrated and comprehensive reporting guidelines that adhere to the principles of Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability. This alignment is essential for fostering a cultural shift toward transparency and open science, which are pivotal milestone for sustainable digital health research.ConclusionThis review evaluates the current reporting guidelines, discussing their advantages as well as challenges and limitations.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) Healthcare applications are listed in the national visions of some Gulf Cooperation Council countries. A successful use of AI depends on the attitude and perception of medical experts of its applications.ObjectiveTo evaluate physicians and medical students' attitude and perception on AI applications in healthcare.MethodA web-based survey was disseminated by email to physicians and medical students.ResultsA total of 293 (82 physicians and 211 medical students) individuals have participated (response rate is 27%). Seven participants (9%) reported knowing nothing about AI, while 208 (69%) were aware that it is an emerging field and would like to learn about it. Concerns about AI impact on physicians' employability were not prominent. Instead, the majority (n=159) agreed that new positions will be created and the job market for those who embrace AI will increase. They reported willingness to adapt AI in practice if it was incorporated in international guidelines (30.5%), published in respected scientific journals (17.1%), or included in formal training (12.2%). Almost two of the three participants agreed that dedicated courses will help them to implement AI. The most commonly reported problem of AI is its inability to provide opinions in unexpected scenarios. Half of the participants think that both the manufacturer and physicians should be legally liable for medical errors occur due to AI-based decision support tools while more than one-third (36.77%) think that physicians who make the final decision should be legally liable. Senior physicians were found to be less familiar with AI and more concerned about physicians' legal liability in case of a medical error.ConclusionPhysicians and medical students showed positive attitudes and willingness to learn about AI applications in healthcare. Introducing AI learning objectives or short courses in medical curriculum would help to equip physicians with the needed skills for AI-augmented healthcare system.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)-powered technologies are being increasingly used in almost all fields, including medicine. However, to successfully implement medical AI applications, ensuring trust and acceptance toward such technologies is crucial for their successful spread and timely adoption worldwide. Although AI applications in medicine provide advantages to the current health care system, there are also various associated challenges regarding, for instance, data privacy, accountability, and equity and fairness, which could hinder medical AI application implementation.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify factors related to trust in and acceptance of novel AI-powered medical technologies and to assess the relevance of those factors among relevant stakeholders.MethodsThis study used a mixed methods design. First, a rapid review of the existing literature was conducted, aiming to identify various factors related to trust in and acceptance of novel AI applications in medicine. Next, an electronic survey including the rapid review-derived factors was disseminated among key stakeholder groups. Participants (N=22) were asked to assess on a 5-point Likert scale (1=irrelevant to 5=relevant) to what extent they thought the various factors (N=19) were relevant to trust in and acceptance of novel AI applications in medicine.ResultsThe rapid review (N=32 papers) yielded 110 factors related to trust and 77 factors related to acceptance toward AI technology in medicine. Closely related factors were assigned to 1 of the 19 overarching umbrella factors, which were further grouped into 4 categories: human-related (ie, the type of institution AI professionals originate from), technology-related (ie, the explainability and transparency of AI application processes and outcomes), ethical and legal (ie, data use transparency), and additional factors (ie, AI applications being environment friendly). The categorized 19 umbrella factors were presented as survey statements, which were evaluated by relevant stakeholders. Survey participants (N=22) represented researchers (n=18, 82%), technology providers (n=5, 23%), hospital staff (n=3, 14%), and policy makers (n=3, 14%). Of the 19 factors, 16 (84%) human-related, technology-related, ethical and legal, and additional factors were considered to be of high relevance to trust in and acceptance of novel AI applications in medicine. The patient's gender, age, and education level were found to be of low relevance (3/19, 16%).ConclusionsThe results of this study could help the implementers of medical AI applications to understand what drives trust and acceptance toward AI-powered technologies among key stakeholders in medicine. Consequently, this would allow the implementers to identify strategies that facilitate trust in and acceptance of medical AI applications among key stakeholders and potential users.

Dataset Information

The use of artificial intelligence applications in medicine and the standard required for healthcare provider-patient briefings-an exploratory study.

Introduction

Methods

Results and conclusions

Publications

The use of artificial intelligence applications in medicine and the standard required for healthcare provider-patient briefings-an exploratory study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets