Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Artificial Intelligence | Research article

Use of AI-based tools for healthcare purposes: a survey study from consumers’ perspectives

Author: Pouyan Esmaeilzadeh

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Several studies highlight the effects of artificial intelligence (AI) systems on healthcare delivery. AI-based tools may improve prognosis, diagnostics, and care planning. It is believed that AI will be an integral part of healthcare services in the near future and will be incorporated into several aspects of clinical care. Thus, many technology companies and governmental projects have invested in producing AI-based clinical tools and medical applications. Patients can be one of the most important beneficiaries and users of AI-based applications whose perceptions may affect the widespread use of AI-based tools. Patients should be ensured that they will not be harmed by AI-based devices, and instead, they will be benefited by using AI technology for healthcare purposes. Although AI can enhance healthcare outcomes, possible dimensions of concerns and risks should be addressed before its integration with routine clinical care.

Methods

We develop a model mainly based on value perceptions due to the specificity of the healthcare field. This study aims at examining the perceived benefits and risks of AI medical devices with clinical decision support (CDS) features from consumers’ perspectives. We use an online survey to collect data from 307 individuals in the United States.

Results

The proposed model identifies the sources of motivation and pressure for patients in the development of AI-based devices. The results show that technological, ethical (trust factors), and regulatory concerns significantly contribute to the perceived risks of using AI applications in healthcare. Of the three categories, technological concerns (i.e., performance and communication feature) are found to be the most significant predictors of risk beliefs.

Conclusions

This study sheds more light on factors affecting perceived risks and proposes some recommendations on how to practically reduce these concerns. The findings of this study provide implications for research and practice in the area of AI-based CDS. Regulatory agencies, in cooperation with healthcare institutions, should establish normative standard and evaluation guidelines for the implementation and use of AI in healthcare. Regular audits and ongoing monitoring and reporting systems can be used to continuously evaluate the safety, quality, transparency, and ethical factors of AI-based services.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Kaplan A, Haenlein M. Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Bus Horiz. 2019;62(1):15–25.
2.
Jarrahi MH. Artificial intelligence and the future of work: human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Bus Horiz. 2018;61(4):577–86.
3.
Gursoy D, Chi OH, Lu L, Nunkoo R. Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery. Int J Inf Manag. 2019;49:157–69.
4.
López-Robles J-R, Otegi-Olaso J-R, Gómez IP, Cobo M-J. 30 years of intelligence models in management and business: a bibliometric review. Int J Inf Manag. 2019;48:22–38.
5.
Brufau SR, Wyatt KD, Boyum P, Mickelson M, Moore M, Cognetta-Rieke C. A lesson in implementation: a pre-post study of providers’ experience with artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support. Int J Med Inform. 2019; 137:104072.
6.
Coombs C, Hislop D, Taneva SK, Barnard S. The strategic impacts of intelligent automation for knowledge and service work: an interdisciplinary review. J Strateg Inf Syst. 2020;101600. In Press.
7.
Khanna S, Sattar A, Hansen D. Artificial intelligence in health–the three big challenges. Australas Med J. 2013;6(5):315.PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Dreyer K, Allen B. Artificial intelligence in health care: brave new world or golden opportunity? J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(4):655–7.PubMed
9.
Houssami N, Turner RM, Morrow M. Meta-analysis of pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgical treatment for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165(2):273–83.PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Laï M-C, Brian M, Mamzer M-F. Perceptions of artificial intelligence in healthcare: findings from a qualitative survey study among actors in France. J Transl Med. 2020;18(1):1–13.
11.
Turja T, Aaltonen I, Taipale S, Oksanen A. Robot acceptance model for care (RAM-care): a principled approach to the intention to use care robots. Inf Manage. 2019;57(5):103220.
12.
Kim H-W, Chan HC, Gupta S. Value-based adoption of mobile internet: an empirical investigation. Decis Support Syst. 2007;43(1):111–26.
13.
Chung N, Koo C. The use of social media in travel information search. Telematics Inform. 2015;32(2):215–29.
14.
Sohn K, Kwon O. Technology acceptance theories and factors influencing artificial intelligence-based intelligent products. Telematics Inform. 2020;47:101324.
15.
Esteva A, Robicquet A, Ramsundar B, Kuleshov V, DePristo M, Chou K, et al. A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):24–9.PubMed
16.
Zhao X, Xia Q, Wayne WH. Impact of technostress on productivity from the theoretical perspective of appraisal and coping processes. Inf Manage. 2020;103265. In Press.
17.
Sarin S, Sego T, Chanvarasuth N. Strategic use of bundling for reducing consumers’ perceived risk associated with the purchase of new high-tech products. J Mark Theory Pract. 2003;11(3):71–83.
18.
Lu L, Cai R, Gursoy D. Developing and validating a service robot integration willingness scale. Int J Hosp Manag. 2019;80:36–51.
19.
Reddy S, Allan S, Coghlan S, Cooper P. A governance model for the application of AI in health care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(3):491–7.PubMed
20.
Stewart KA, Segars AH. An empirical examination of the concern for information privacy instrument. Inf Syst Res. 2002;13(1):36–49.
21.
Luxton DD. Should Watson be consulted for a second opinion? AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(2):131–7.
22.
Cath C. Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2018;376(2133):20180080.
23.
Bansal G, Zahedi FM, Gefen D. Do context and personality matter? Trust and privacy concerns in disclosing private information online. Inf Manage. 2016;53(1):1–21.
24.
Lo WLA, Lei D, Li L, Huang DF, Tong K-F. The perceived benefits of an artificial intelligence–embedded Mobile app implementing evidence-based guidelines for the self-Management of Chronic Neck and Back Pain: observational study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018;6(11):e198.PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Ismagilova E, Aarts G, Coombs C, Crick T, et al. Artificial intelligence (AI): multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manag. 2019;101994. In Press.
26.
Yang Y, Liu Y, Li H, Yu B. Understanding perceived risks in mobile payment acceptance. In: Industrial Management & Data Systems; 2015.
27.
He J, Baxter SL, Xu J, Xu J, Zhou X, Zhang K. The practical implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in medicine. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):30–6.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Mitchell M. Artificial intelligence hits the barrier of meaning. Information. 2019;10(2):51.
29.
Reddy S, Fox J, Purohit MP. Artificial intelligence-enabled healthcare delivery. J R Soc Med. 2019;112(1):22–8.PubMed
30.
Vayena E, Blasimme A, Cohen IG. Machine learning in medicine: addressing ethical challenges. PLoS Med. 2018;15(11):e1002689.
31.
Dal Mas F, Piccolo D, Edvinsson L, Presch G, Massaro M, Skrap M, et al. The effects of artificial intelligence, robotics, and industry 4.0 technologies. In: Insights from the healthcare sector. ECIAIR 2019 European conference on the impact of artificial intelligence and robotics. Oxford: Academic Conferences and publishing limited; 2019.
32.
Xu J, Yang P, Xue S, Sharma B, Sanchez-Martin M, Wang F, et al. Translating cancer genomics into precision medicine with artificial intelligence: applications, challenges and future perspectives. Hum Genet. 2019;138(2):109–24.PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Esmaeilzadeh P. The effects of public concern for information privacy on the adoption of health information exchanges (HIEs) by healthcare entities. Health Commun. 2018:34(10):1202–11.
34.
Dawson D, Schleiger E, Horton J, McLaughlin J, Robinson C, Quezada G, et al. Artificial intelligence: Australia’s ethics framework. Data 61 CSIRO, Australia; 2019.
35.
Zandi D, Reis A, Vayena E, Goodman K. New ethical challenges of digital technologies, machine learning and artificial intelligence in public health: a call for papers. Bull World Health Organ. 2019;97(1):2.PubMedCentral
36.
Char DS, Shah NH, Magnus D. Implementing machine learning in health care—addressing ethical challenges. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(11):981.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Whittlestone J, Nyrup R, Alexandrova A, Dihal K, Cave S. Ethical and societal implications of algorithms, data, and artificial intelligence: a roadmap for research. London: Nuffield Foundation; 2019.
38.
Sun TQ, Medaglia R. Mapping the challenges of artificial intelligence in the public sector: evidence from public healthcare. Gov Inf Q. 2019;36(2):368–83.
39.
Lee J-G, Kim KJ, Lee S, Shin D-H. Can autonomous vehicles be safe and trustworthy? Effects of appearance and autonomy of unmanned driving systems. Int J Human-Computer Interact. 2015;31(10):682–91.
40.
Hengstler M, Enkel E, Duelli S. Applied artificial intelligence and trust—the case of autonomous vehicles and medical assistance devices. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2016;105:105–20.
41.
Angwin J, Larson J, Mattu S, Kirchner L. Machine bias. ProPublica. 2016;23:2016.
42.
Edwards SD. The HeartMath coherence model: implications and challenges for artificial intelligence and robotics. AI Soc. 2019;34(4):899–905.
43.
Stuart R, Peter N. Artificial intelligence-a modern approach 3rd ed. Berkeley: Pearson Education, Inc.; 2016.
44.
Kirkpatrick K. It's not the algorithm, it's the data. New York: ACM; 2017.
45.
Noble SU. Algorithms of oppression: how search engines reinforce racism: nyu press; 2018.
46.
Waring J, Lindvall C, Umeton R. Automated machine learning: review of the state-of-the-art and opportunities for healthcare. Artif Intell Med. 2020;104:101822.
47.
Gupta RK, Kumari R. Artificial intelligence in public health: opportunities and challenges. JK Sci. 2017;19(4):191–2.
48.
Wirtz BW, Weyerer JC, Geyer C. Artificial intelligence and the public sector—applications and challenges. Int J Public Adm. 2019;42(7):596–615.
49.
Pesapane F, Volonté C, Codari M, Sardanelli F. Artificial intelligence as a medical device in radiology: ethical and regulatory issues in Europe and the United States. Insights Into Imaging. 2018;9(5):745–53.PubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Bansal G, Gefen D. The impact of personal dispositions on information sensitivity, privacy concern and trust in disclosing health information online. Decis Support Syst. 2010;49(2):138–50.
51.
52.
Tizhoosh HR, Pantanowitz L. Artificial intelligence and digital pathology: challenges and opportunities. J Pathol informatics. 2018;9(38).
53.
Beregi J, Zins M, Masson J, Cart P, Bartoli J, Silberman B, et al. Radiology and artificial intelligence: an opportunity for our specialty. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018;99(11):677.PubMed
54.
Haenssle HA, Fink C, Schneiderbauer R, Toberer F, Buhl T, Blum A, et al. Man against machine: diagnostic performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network for dermoscopic melanoma recognition in comparison to 58 dermatologists. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(8):1836–42.PubMed
55.
Jiang F, Jiang Y, Zhi H, Dong Y, Li H, Ma S, et al. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: past, present and future. Stroke Vascular Neurol. 2017;2(4):230–43.
56.
Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract. 2011;19(2):139–52.
57.
Paolacci G, Chandler J. Inside the Turk: understanding mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2014;23(3):184–8.
58.
O'Leary MB, Wilson JM, Metiu A. Beyond being there: the symbolic role of communication and identification in perceptions of proximity to geographically dispersed colleagues. MIS Q. 2014;38(4):1219–43.
59.
Huang JL, Curran PG, Keeney J, Poposki EM, DeShon RP. Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding to surveys. J Bus Psychol. 2012;27(1):99–114.
60.
Mason W, Suri S. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods. 2012;44(1):1–23.PubMed
61.
Muthén LK, Muthén BO. How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2002;9(4):599–620.
62.
Westland JC. Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electron Commer Res Appl. 2010;9(6):476–87.
63.
Andersen PH, Kumar R. Emotions, trust and relationship development in business relationships: a conceptual model for buyer–seller dyads. Ind Mark Manag. 2006;35(4):522–35.
64.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis 6th edition. Pearson prentice hall New Jersey humans: critique and reformulation. J Abnorm Psychol. 2006;87:49–74.
65.
West SG, Finch JF, Curran PJ. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: problems and remedies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 1995.
66.
Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau M-C. Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2000;4(1):7.
67.
Chin WW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod Methods Bus Res. 1998;295(2):295–336.
68.
Segars AH. Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: a paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega. 1997;25(1):107–21.
69.
Fornell C, Tellis GJ, Zinkhan GM. Validity assessment: a structural equations approach using partial least squares. Chicago: Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Educators’ Conference; 1982.
70.
Sharma R, Yetton P, Crawford J. Estimating the effect of common method variance: the method—method pair technique with an illustration from TAM research. MIS Q. 2009;33(3):473–90.
71.
Cenfetelli RT, Benbasat I, Al-Natour S. Addressing the what and how of online services: positioning supporting-services functionality and service quality for business-to-consumer success. Inf Syst Res. 2008;19(2):161–81.
72.
Ho R. Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group; 2006.
73.
Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling: perspectives on the present and the future. Int J Test. 2001;1(3–4):327–34.
74.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling: Guilford publications; 2015.
75.
Froomkin AM, Kerr I, Pineau J. When AIs outperform doctors: confronting the challenges of a tort-induced over-reliance on machine learning. Ariz L Rev. 2019;61:33.
76.
Fiske A, Henningsen P, Buyx A. Your robot therapist will see you now: ethical implications of embodied artificial intelligence in psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(5):e13216.PubMedPubMedCentral
77.
Lee S, Lee N, Sah YJ. Perceiving a mind in a Chatbot: effect of mind perception and social cues on co-presence, closeness, and intention to use. Int J Human–Computer Interaction. 2019;36(10):1–11.
78.
Sharkey A, Sharkey N. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol. 2012;14(1):27–40.
79.
Tran V-T, Riveros C, Ravaud P. Patients’ views of wearable devices and AI in healthcare: findings from the ComPaRe e-cohort. NPJ digital medicine. 2019;2(1):1–8.
80.
Malhotra NK, Kim SS, Agarwal J. Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inf Syst Res. 2004;15(4):336–55.
81.
Hong J-W, Williams D. Racism, responsibility and autonomy in HCI: testing perceptions of an AI agent. Comput Hum Behav. 2019;100:79–84.
82.
Komiak SX, Benbasat I. The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS Q. 2006;30(4):941–60.
83.
Dwivedi YK, Rana NP, Jeyaraj A, Clement M, Williams MD. Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): towards a revised theoretical model. Inf Syst Front. 2019;21(3):719–34.
84.
Sundar SS, Waddell TF, Jung EH. The Hollywood robot syndrome media effects on older adults' attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI): New Zealand: IEEE; 2016.
85.
Lee B, Cranage DA. Causal attributions and overall blame of self-service technology (SST) failure: different from service failures by employee and policy. J Hosp Market Manag. 2018;27(1):61–84.
86.
Duan Y, Edwards JS, Dwivedi YK. Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of big data–evolution, challenges and research agenda. Int J Inf Manag. 2019;48:63–71.
87.
Schiff D, Borenstein J. How should clinicians communicate with patients about the roles of artificially intelligent team members? AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(2):138–45.
Metadata
Title
Use of AI-based tools for healthcare purposes: a survey study from consumers’ perspectives
Author
Pouyan Esmaeilzadeh
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01191-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

Differential influences of social support on app use for diabetes self-management – a mixed methods approach

Research article

Using machine learning methods to predict in-hospital mortality of sepsis patients in the ICU

Research article

Designing a novel hybrid healthcare teleconsultation network: a benchtop study of telepathology in Iran and a systematic review

Research article

Digital health Systems in Kenyan Public Hospitals: a mixed-methods survey

Technical advance

Towards a comprehensive and interoperable representation of consent-based data usage permissions in the German medical informatics initiative

Research article

Adapting a home telemonitoring intervention for underserved Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes: an acceptability and feasibility study