Assessing the Utility, Impact, and Adoption Challenges of an Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Prescription Advisory Tool for Type 2 Diabetes Management: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) presents a significant challenge due to the constantly evolving clinical practice guidelines and growing array of drug classes available. Evidence suggests that artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have proven to be effective in assisting clinicians with informed decision-making. Despite the merits of AI-driven CDSSs, a significant research gap exists concerning the early-stage implementation and adoption of AI-enabled CDSSs in T2DM management. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the perspectives of clinicians on the use and impact of the AI-enabled Prescription Advisory (APA) tool, developed using a multi-institution diabetes registry and implemented in specialist endocrinology clinics, and the challenges to its adoption and application. METHODS: We conducted focus group discussions using a semistructured interview guide with purposively selected endocrinologists from a tertiary hospital. The focus group discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 13 clinicians participated in 4 focus group discussions. Our findings suggest that the APA tool offered several useful features to assist clinicians in effectively managing T2DM. Specifically, clinicians viewed the AI-generated medication alterations as a good knowledge resource in supporting the clinician's decision-making on drug modifications at the point of care, particularly for patients with comorbidities. The complication risk prediction was seen as positively impacting patient care by facilitating early doctor-patient communication and initiating prompt clinical responses. However, the interpretability of the risk scores, concerns about overreliance and automation bias, and issues surrounding accountability and liability hindered the adoption of the APA tool in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Although the APA tool holds great potential as a valuable resource for improving patient care, further efforts are required to address clinicians' concerns and improve the tool's acceptance and applicability in relevant contexts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".