Acceptance of AI in Health Care for Short- and Long-Term Treatments: Pilot Development Study of an Integrated Theoretical Model
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: As digital technologies and especially artificial intelligence (AI) become increasingly important in health care, it is essential to determine whether and why potential users intend to use related health information systems (HIS). Several theories exist, but they focus mainly on aspects of health care or information systems, in addition to general psychological theories, and hence provide a small number of variables to explain future behavior. Thus, research that provides a larger number of variables by combining several theories from health care, information systems, and psychology is necessary. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the intention to use new HIS for decisions concerning short- and long-term medical treatments using an integrated approach with several variables to explain future behavior. METHODS: We developed an integrated theoretical model based on theories from health care, information systems, and psychology that allowed us to analyze the duality approach of adaptive and nonadaptive appraisals and their influence on the intention to use HIS. We applied the integrated theoretical model to the short-term treatment using AI-based HIS for surgery and the long-term treatment of diabetes tracking using survey data with structured equation modeling. To differentiate between certain levels of AI involvement, we used several scenarios that include treatments by physicians only, physicians with AI support, and AI only to understand how individuals perceive the influence of AI. RESULTS: Our results showed that for short- and long-term treatments, the variables perceived threats, fear (disease), perceived efficacy, attitude (HIS), and perceived norms are important to consider when determining the intention to use AI-based HIS. Furthermore, the results revealed that perceived efficacy and attitude (HIS) are the most important variables to determine intention to use for all treatments and scenarios. In contrast, abilities (HIS) were important for short-term treatments only. For our 9 scenarios, adaptive and nonadaptive appraisals were both important to determine intention to use, depending on whether the treatment is known. Furthermore, we determined R² values that varied between 57.9% and 81.7% for our scenarios, which showed that the explanation power of our model is medium to good. CONCLUSIONS: We contribute to HIS literature by highlighting the importance of integrating disease- and technology-related factors and by providing an integrated theoretical model. As such, we show how adaptive and nonadaptive appraisals should be arranged to report on medical decisions in the future, especially in the short and long terms. Physicians and HIS developers can use our insights to identify promising rationale for HIS adoption concerning short- and long-term treatments and adapt and develop HIS accordingly. Specifically, HIS developers should ensure that future HIS act in terms of HIS functions, as our study shows that efficient HIS lead to a positive attitude toward the HIS and ultimately to a higher intention to use.
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 | 0,014 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 ».