Acceptance, Barriers, and Facilitators to Implementing Artificial Intelligence–Based Decision Support Systems in Emergency Departments: Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing availability of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and rising expectation for CDSSs based on artificial intelligence (AI), little is known about the acceptance of AI-based CDSS by physicians and its barriers and facilitators in emergency care settings. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the acceptance, barriers, and facilitators to implementing AI-based CDSSs in the emergency care setting through the opinions of physicians on our newly developed, real-time AI-based CDSS, which alerts ED physicians by predicting aortic dissection based on numeric and text information from medical charts, by using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; for quantitative evaluation) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR; for qualitative evaluation) frameworks. METHODS: This mixed methods study was performed from March to April 2021. Transitional year residents (n=6), emergency medicine residents (n=5), and emergency physicians (n=3) from two community, tertiary care hospitals in Japan were included. We first developed a real-time CDSS for predicting aortic dissection based on numeric and text information from medical charts (eg, chief complaints, medical history, vital signs) with natural language processing. This system was deployed on the internet, and the participants used the system with clinical vignettes of model cases. Participants were then involved in a mixed methods evaluation consisting of a UTAUT-based questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale (quantitative) and a CFIR-based semistructured interview (qualitative). Cronbach α was calculated as a reliability estimate for UTAUT subconstructs. Interviews were sampled, transcribed, and analyzed using the MaxQDA software. The framework analysis approach was used during the study to determine the relevance of the CFIR constructs. RESULTS: All 14 participants completed the questionnaires and interviews. Quantitative analysis revealed generally positive responses for user acceptance with all scores above the neutral score of 3.0. In addition, the mixed methods analysis identified two significant barriers (System Performance, Compatibility) and two major facilitators (Evidence Strength, Design Quality) for implementation of AI-based CDSSs in emergency care settings. CONCLUSIONS: Our mixed methods evaluation based on theoretically grounded frameworks revealed the acceptance, barriers, and facilitators of implementation of AI-based CDSS. Although the concern of system failure and overtrusting of the system could be barriers to implementation, the locality of the system and designing an intuitive user interface could likely facilitate the use of optimal AI-based CDSS. Alleviating and resolving these factors should be key to achieving good user acceptance of AI-based CDSS.
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 | 0.044 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".