PATIENT PERCEPTION TOWARDS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN HEALTHCARE: TRUST, ACCEPTANCE, AND ETHICAL
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming a regularly used component in healthcare models around the globe and transforming the processes of clinical decision-making, diagnostics, patient monitoring, and administration. Regardless of the rapid development of technology, the introduction of AI into the healthcare industry is highly dependent on patients, their views and trust. The current paper is a review of the literature and a synthesis of the existing empirical data related to the subject of patient perception of AI in the medical facility. Based on the researches made with various demographic groups and in different health settings, the paper will explore determinants that promote patient acceptance or resistance such as transparency, explainability, cultural sensitivity, existing knowledge of technology, and privacy and data security concerns. The analysis also discusses how patient autonomy and algorithmic decision-making interact, how the collaboration between physicians and AI affects patient trust, and how healthcare organizations can act ethically concerning the responsible implementation of AI. The results show that although patients recognize the opportunities of AI to enhance the process of healthcare delivery, the lack of trust, insufficient health literacy, and dehumanization fears do not allow the widespread acceptance of AI. Implications on healthcare policy, the design of human-centered AI systems, and recommendations on improving patient engagement in AI transition are presented at the end of the paper.
Downloads
References
2. Ahuja, A. S. (2019). The impact of artificial intelligence in medicine on the future role of the physician. PeerJ, 7, e7702. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7702
3. Bates, D. W., Saria, S., Ohno-Machado, L., Shah, A., & Escobar, G. (2014). Big data in health care: Using analytics to identify and manage high-risk and high-cost patients. Health Affairs, 33(7), 1123–1131.
4. Blease, C., Kaptchuk, T. J., Bernstein, M. H., Mandl, K. D., Halamka, J. D., & DesRoches, C. M. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the future of primary care: Exploratory qualitative study of UK general practitioners' views. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(3), e12802.
5. Choudhury, A., & Asan, O. (2020). Role of artificial intelligence in patient safety outcomes: Systematic literature review. JMIR Medical Informatics, 8(7), e18599. https://doi.org/10.2196/18599
6. Davenport, T., & Kalakota, R. (2019). The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future Healthcare Journal, 6(2), 94–98.
7. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
8. Dillahunt-Aspillaga, C., Gloss, T., Torres, E., & Ruggiero, K. (2020). Patient perceptions of technology-assisted rehabilitation: A qualitative study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 15(6), 669–675.
9. European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council: General Data Protection Regulation. Official Journal of the European Union.
10. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707.
11. Garg, A. X., Adhikari, N. K., McDonald, H., Rosas-Arellano, M. P., Devereaux, P. J., Beyene, J., & Haynes, R. B. (2005). Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes. JAMA, 293(10), 1223–1238.
12. He, J., Baxter, S. L., Xu, J., Xu, J., Zhou, X., & Zhang, K. (2019). The practical implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in medicine. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 30–36.
13. Jiang, F., Jiang, Y., Zhi, H., Dong, Y., Li, H., Ma, S., & Wang, Y. (2017). Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Past, present and future. Stroke and Vascular Neurology, 2(4), 230–243.
14. Khullar, D., Casalino, L. P., & Qian, Y. (2020). Perspectives of patients about artificial intelligence in health care. JAMA Network Open, 3(6), e2014857.
15. Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019). Resistance to medical artificial intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 629–650.
16. Maddox, T. M., Rumsfeld, J. S., & Payne, P. R. O. (2019). Questions for artificial intelligence in health care. JAMA, 321(1), 31–32.
17. Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019). Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science, 366(6464), 447–453.
18. Rajpurkar, P., Chen, E., Banerjee, O., & Topol, E. J. (2022). AI in health and medicine. Nature Medicine, 28(1), 31–38.
19. Reddy, S., Fox, J., & Purber, M. P. (2019). Artificial intelligence-enabled healthcare delivery. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 112(1), 22–28.
20. Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016). 'Why should I trust you?': Explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1135–1144.
21. Shortliffe, E. H., & Sepúlveda, M. J. (2018). Clinical decision support in the era of artificial intelligence. JAMA, 320(21), 2199–2200.
22. Topol, E. J. (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 44–56.
23. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
24. Wachter, R. (2015). The digital doctor: Hope, hype, and harm at the dawn of medicine's computer age. McGraw-Hill Education.
25. Zou, J., & Schiebinger, L. (2018). AI can be sexist and racist — it's time to make it fair. Nature, 559(7714), 324–326.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By submitting a manuscript to IJRDO – Journal of Business Management, the author(s) confirm that the work is original and does not infringe upon any existing copyrights or third-party rights.
Authors retain responsibility for the content of their work. In cases of proven ethical misconduct such as plagiarism or duplicate publication, the journal reserves the right to take appropriate action, which may include correction or retraction, in accordance with publication ethics.
