Prioritizing Trust in Podiatrists’ Preference for AI in Supportive Roles Over Diagnostic Roles in Health Care: Qualitative Interview and Focus Group Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: As artificial intelligence (AI) evolves, its roles have expanded from helping out with routine tasks to making complex decisions, once the exclusive domain of human experts. This shift is pronounced in health care, where AI aids in tasks ranging from image recognition in radiology to personalized treatment plans, demonstrating the potential to, at times, surpass human accuracy and efficiency. Despite AI's accuracy in some critical tasks, the adoption of AI in health care is a challenge, in part because of skepticism about being able to rely on AI decisions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and delve into more effective and acceptable ways of integrating AI into a broader spectrum of health care tasks. METHODS: We included 2 qualitative phases to explore podiatrists' views on AI in health care. Initially, we interviewed 9 podiatrists (7 women and 2 men) with a mean age of 41 (SD 12) years and aimed to capture their sentiments regarding the use and role of AI in their work. Subsequently, a focus group with 5 podiatrists (4 women and 1 man) with a mean age of 54 (SD 10) years delved into AI's supportive and diagnostic roles on the basis of the interviews. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using Atlas.ti and QDA-Miner, using both thematic analysis for broad patterns and framework analysis for structured insights per established guidelines. RESULTS: Our research unveiled 9 themes and 3 subthemes, clarifying podiatrists' nuanced views on AI in health care. Key overlapping insights in the 2 phases included a preference for using AI in supportive roles, such as triage, because of its efficiency and process optimization capabilities. There is a discernible hesitancy toward leveraging AI for diagnostic purposes, driven by concerns regarding its accuracy and the essential nature of human expertise. The need for transparency and explainability in AI systems emerged as a critical factor for fostering trust in both phases. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight a complex view from podiatrists on AI, showing openness to its application in supportive roles while exercising caution with diagnostic use. This result is consistent with a careful introduction of AI into health care in roles, such as triage, in which there is initial trust, as opposed to roles that ask the AI for a complete diagnosis. Such strategic adoption can mitigate initial resistance, gradually building the confidence to explore AI's capabilities in more nuanced tasks, including diagnostics, where skepticism is currently more pronounced. Adopting AI stepwise could thus enhance trust and acceptance across a broader range of health care tasks, aligning technology integration with professional comfort and patient care standards.
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 | 0,023 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».