Exploring Differential Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care Among Younger Versus Older Canadians: Results From the 2021 Canadian Digital Health Survey (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The changing landscape of health care has led to the incorporation of powerful new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) to assist with various services across a hospital. However, despite the potential outcomes that this tool may provide, little work has examined public opinion regarding their use. OBJECTIVE In this study, we aim to explore differences between younger versus older Canadians with regard to the level of comfort and perceptions around the adoption and use of AI in health care settings. METHODS Using data from the 2021 Canadian Digital Health Survey (n=12,052), items related to perceptions about the use of AI as well as previous experience and satisfaction with health care were identified. We conducted Mann-Whitney U tests to compare the level of comfort of younger versus older Canadians regarding the use of AI in health care for a variety of purposes. Multinomial logistic regression was used to predict the comfort ratings based on categorical indicators. RESULTS Younger Canadians had greater knowledge of AI, but older Canadians were more comfortable with AI applied to monitoring and predicting health conditions, decision support, diagnostic imaging, precision medicine, drug and vaccine development, disease monitoring at home, tracking epidemics, and optimizing workflow to save time. Additionally, for older respondents, higher satisfaction led to higher comfort ratings. Only 1 interaction effect was identified between previous experience, satisfaction, and comfort with AI for drug and vaccine development. CONCLUSIONS Older Canadians may be more open to various applications of AI within health care than younger Canadians. High satisfaction may be a critical criterion for comfort with AI, especially for older Canadians. Additionally, in the case of drug and vaccine development, previous experience may be an important moderating factor. We conclude that gaining a greater understanding of the perceptions of all health care users is integral to the implementation and sustainability of new and cutting-edge technologies in health care settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".