Are physicians ready for precision antibiotic prescribing? A qualitative analysis of the acceptance of artificial intelligence-enabled clinical decision support systems in India and Singapore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can augment antibiotic decision-making capabilities, but physicians' hesitancy in adopting them may undermine their utility. We conducted a cross-country comparison of physician perceptions on the barriers and facilitators in accepting an AI-enabled CDSS for antibiotic prescribing. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with physicians from the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID), Singapore, and Christian Medical College Vellore (CMCV), India, between April and December 2022. Our semi-structured in-depth interview guides were anchored on Venkatesh's UTAUT model. We used clinical vignettes to illustrate the application of AI in clinical decision support for antibiotic prescribing and explore medico-legal concerns. RESULTS: Most NCID physicians felt that an AI-enabled CDSS could facilitate antibiotic prescribing, while most CMCV physicians were sceptical about the tool's utility. The hesitancy in adopting an AI-enabled CDSS stems from concerns about the lack of validated and successful examples, fear of losing autonomy and clinical skills, difficulty of use, and impediment in work efficiency. Physicians from both sites felt that a user-friendly interface, integration with workflow, transparency of output, a guiding medico-legal framework, and training and technical support would improve the uptake of an AI-enabled CDSS. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the acceptance of AI-enabled CDSSs depends on the physician's confidence with the tool's recommendations, perceived ease of use, familiarity with AI, the organisation's digital culture and support, and the presence of medico-legal governance of AI. Progressive implementation and continuous feedback are essential to allay scepticism around the utility of AI-enabled CDSSs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".