Evaluation of Cancer Survivors’ Experience of Using AI-Based Conversational Tools: Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Cancer survivorship is a complicated, chronic, and long-lasting experience, causing uncertainty and a wide range of physical and emotional health concerns. Due to the complexity of cancer, patients often seek out multiple sources of health information to better understand the aspects of their cancer diagnosis. The high variability among patients with cancer presents significant challenges in treatment, prognosis, and overall disease management. Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots can further personalize cancer care delivery. However, there is a knowledge gap regarding cancer survivors' perceived facilitators and barriers to adopting and using AI chatbots. Objective: In this study, we examined cancer survivors' experiences of using existing AI chatbots and identified their facilitators and barriers to the adoption of AI chatbots. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study to investigate the perceptions of cancer survivors, conducting semistructured interviews to understand their prior use of existing AI chatbots in general. We asked the participants about their perceptions regarding AI chatbot acceptability and comfort level; trust and adherence; and concerns, barriers, and suggestions. We used the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist for this qualitative report. Results: Of 21 participants, 17 (81%) were female patients with breast cancer, 15 (71%) were aged 50 to 64 years, 19 (90%) were White, and 9 (43%) had a graduate degree. Participants' responses were grouped into three overarching themes: (1) patients' perceptions of interacting with chatbots compared to health care professionals, (2) patient-chatbot interaction, and (3) chatbot information processing. All participants who were interviewed reported that they would prefer interacting with health care professionals over a chatbot. The lack of empathy shown by chatbots was a major concern among cancer survivors. Many patients criticized chatbots for tending to provide a general overarching response to their questions rather than being specific to their cancer diagnosis. The main concerns of cancer survivors with using chatbots were the overabundance of general information that was often not relevant to their diagnosis and privacy of patient information. Conclusions: The findings of this study underscore the critical importance of empathetic responses during AI chatbot interactions for cancer survivors, as the lack of personalized and emotional responses can lead to distrust and frustration. Clinically, these tools should be integrated as supplementary resources to enhance patient engagement while preserving essential human support. Policymakers need to develop guidelines that promote responsible use of AI in cancer care, prioritizing patient confidentiality and trustworthiness. AI chatbots have the potential to significantly improve the support provided to cancer survivors, but it is crucial to address the identified barriers and enhance user acceptance.
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 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 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».