The Impact of Cultural Dimensions of Clinicians on the Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Healthcare is probably the last frontier that Artificial Intelligence (AI) has not conquered. Cultural factors significantly impact the way healthcare is accessed and delivered. Affordability, educational and social status, physician training, lack of physician talent in difficult to serve areas all contribute to this. Cultural perspectives of clinicians and clinical habits during the human-computer interaction and inherent suspicion of lack of human to human interaction contribute to perceptions of inhibition in the adoption of AI in routine medical practice. In this paper we examine whether measurable cultural dimensions would impact the adoption of AI in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Qualified Medical Professionals (n=206) were chosen randomly and an online secure survey was conducted consisting of 26 questions. 83% of respondents were from different parts of India, remaining 17 % from other countries like USA, Canada, UK, UAE, Oman, Zambia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Japan. We defined four different cultural dimensions inspired by Hofstede's cultural dimension theory and one dimension based on attitudes of clinicians towards technology in general. We measured the following: Compliance distance (the degree of adherence to evidence based standards) Collectivism vs Individualism (the sense of belonging to a group) Long term vs Short term orientation (the idea of planning and thinking long term) Uncertainty Avoidance (the degree of tolerance to uncertainty) Technology Friendliness (the degree to which technology is perceived as being helpful) Results: We found that there were no differences in adoption of AI in clinical practices based on compliance, collectivism, and long term orientation. However, we found a correlation between the requirement for a face to face consultation (high uncertainty avoidance) and Non-adoption of AI. The results demonstrate that uncertainty avoidance hinder the acceptance of technology like telemedicine and AI alike. There were also no major differences in the adoption of AI based on any geographical variation, specialty or practice sector on the adoption of AI. Notably, tech savviness or technology friendliness did not affect the adoption of AI. We conclude that any useful AI technology which gives validated results could be adopted by clinicians in general and has potential to become a good screening measure in areas with poor healthcare access. CONCLUSION: Of the many cultural dimensions we studied, the only dimension that seemed to have an impact on the adoption of any technology including AI was the high uncertainty avoidance. Other dimensions did not impact the adoption of AI.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,040 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».