AI-Assisted Decision-Making in Long-Term Care: Qualitative Study on Prerequisites for Responsible Innovation
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Although the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies, such as AI-based decision support systems (AI-DSSs), can help sustain and improve the quality and efficiency of care, their deployment creates ethical and social challenges. In recent years, a growing prevalence of high-level guidelines and frameworks for responsible AI innovation has been observed. However, few studies have specified the responsible embedding of AI-based technologies, such as AI-DSSs, in specific contexts, such as the nursing process in long-term care (LTC) for older adults. OBJECTIVE: Prerequisites for responsible AI-assisted decision-making in nursing practice were explored from the perspectives of nurses and other professional stakeholders in LTC. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 24 care professionals in Dutch LTC, including nurses, care coordinators, data specialists, and care centralists. A total of 2 imaginary scenarios about AI-DSSs were developed beforehand and used to enable participants articulate their expectations regarding the opportunities and risks of AI-assisted decision-making. In addition, 6 high-level principles for responsible AI were used as probing themes to evoke further consideration of the risks associated with using AI-DSSs in LTC. Furthermore, the participants were asked to brainstorm possible strategies and actions in the design, implementation, and use of AI-DSSs to address or mitigate these risks. A thematic analysis was performed to identify the opportunities and risks of AI-assisted decision-making in nursing practice and the associated prerequisites for responsible innovation in this area. RESULTS: The stance of care professionals on the use of AI-DSSs is not a matter of purely positive or negative expectations but rather a nuanced interplay of positive and negative elements that lead to a weighed perception of the prerequisites for responsible AI-assisted decision-making. Both opportunities and risks were identified in relation to the early identification of care needs, guidance in devising care strategies, shared decision-making, and the workload of and work experience of caregivers. To optimally balance the opportunities and risks of AI-assisted decision-making, seven categories of prerequisites for responsible AI-assisted decision-making in nursing practice were identified: (1) regular deliberation on data collection; (2) a balanced proactive nature of AI-DSSs; (3) incremental advancements aligned with trust and experience; (4) customization for all user groups, including clients and caregivers; (5) measures to counteract bias and narrow perspectives; (6) human-centric learning loops; and (7) the routinization of using AI-DSSs. CONCLUSIONS: The opportunities of AI-assisted decision-making in nursing practice could turn into drawbacks depending on the specific shaping of the design and deployment of AI-DSSs. Therefore, we recommend considering the responsible use of AI-DSSs as a balancing act. Moreover, considering the interrelatedness of the identified prerequisites, we call for various actors, including developers and users of AI-DSSs, to cohesively address the different factors important to the responsible embedding of AI-DSSs in practice.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 découle