Patient Perspectives on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Artificial intelligence (AI) technology is being rapidly adopted into many different branches of medicine. Although research has started to highlight the impact of AI on health care, the focus on patient perspectives of AI is scarce. This scoping review aimed to explore the literature on adult patients' perspectives on the use of an array of AI technologies in the health care setting for design and deployment. Methods: This scoping review followed Arksey and O'Malley's framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). To evaluate patient perspectives, we conducted a comprehensive literature search using eight interdisciplinary electronic databases, including grey literature. Articles published from 2015 to 2022 that focused on patient views regarding AI technology in health care were included. Thematic analysis was performed on the extracted articles. Results: Of the 10,571 imported studies, 37 articles were included and extracted. From the 33 peer-reviewed and 4 grey literature articles, the following themes on AI emerged: (i) Patient attitudes, (ii) Influences on patient attitudes, (iii) Considerations for design, and (iv) Considerations for use. Conclusions: Patients are key stakeholders essential to the uptake of AI in health care. The findings indicate that patients' needs and expectations are not fully considered in the application of AI in health care. Therefore, there is a need for patient voices in the development of AI in health 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 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".