Investigating the Barriers to Physician Adoption of an Artificial Intelligence- Based Decision Support System in Emergency Care: An Interpretative Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems to support diagnostic decision-making is rapidly expanding in health care. However, important challenges remain in executing algorithmic systems at the frontlines of clinical practice. Hence, most often, these systems have not been trained with local data nor do they fit with context-specific patterns of care. This research examines the implementation of an AI-based decision support system (DSS) in the emergency department of a large Academic Health Center (AHC) in Canada, focusing specifically on the question of end-user adoption. Based in an interpretative perspective, the study analyzes the perceptions of healthcare managers, AI developers, physicians and nurses on the DSS, so as to make sense of the main barriers to its adoption by emergency physicians. The study points to the importance of considering interconnections between technical, human and organizational factors to better grasp the unique challenges raised by AI systems in health care. It further emphasizes the need to investigate actors' perceptions of AI in order to develop strategies to adequately test and adapt AI systems, and ensure that they meet the needs of health professionals and patients. This research is particularly relevant at a time when considerable investments are being made to develop and deploy AI-based systems in health care. Empirically probing the conditions under which AI-based systems can effectively be integrated into processes and workflow is essential for maximizing the benefits these investments can bring to the organization and delivery of care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".