MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404480401 · doi:10.2196/54156

Understanding Providers’ Attitude Toward AI in India’s Informal Health Care Sector: Survey Study

2024· article· en· W4404480401 on OpenAlex
Sumeet Kumar, Snehil Rayal, Raghuram Bommaraju, Navya Pratyusha Varasala, Sirisha Papineni, Sarang Deo

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraditional Chinese Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy
KeywordsPreprintHealth carePsychologyComputer scienceEconomic growthEconomicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) is a major global health concern, causing 1.5 million deaths in 2020. Diagnostic tests for TB are often inaccurate, expensive, and inaccessible, making chest x-rays augmented with artificial intelligence (AI) a promising solution. However, whether providers are willing to adopt AI is not apparent. Objective: The study seeks to understand the attitude of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) and informal health care providers, who we jointly call AIPs, toward adopting AI for TB diagnosis. We chose to study these providers as they are the first point of contact for a majority of TB patients in India. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 406 AIPs across the states of Jharkhand (162 participants) and Gujarat (244 participants) in India. We designed the survey questionnaire to assess the AIPs' confidence in treating presumptive TB patients, their trust in local radiologists' reading of the chest x-ray images, their beliefs regarding the diagnostic capabilities of AI, and their willingness to adopt AI for TB diagnosis. Results: We found that 93.7% (270/288) of AIPs believed that AI could improve the accuracy of TB diagnosis, and for those who believed in AI, 71.9% (194/270) were willing to try AI. Among all AIPs, 69.4% (200/288) were willing to try AI. However, we found significant differences in AIPs' willingness to try AI across the 2 states. Specifically, in Gujarat, a state with better and more accessible health care infrastructure, 73.4% (155/211) were willing to try AI, and in Jharkhand, 58.4% (45/77) were willing to try AI. Moreover, AIPs in Gujarat who showed higher trust in the local radiologists were less likely to try AI (odds ratio [OR] 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.69; P=.02). In contrast, in Jharkhand, those who showed higher trust in the local radiologists were more likely to try AI (OR 2.11, 95% CI 0.9-4.93; P=.09). Conclusions: While most AIPs believed in the potential benefits of AI-based TB diagnoses, many did not intend to try AI, indicating that the expected benefits of AI measured in terms of technological superiority may not directly translate to impact on the ground. Improving beliefs among AIPs with poor access to radiology services or those who are less confident of diagnosing TB is likely to result in a greater impact of AI on the ground. Additionally, tailored interventions addressing regional and infrastructural differences may facilitate AI adoption in India's informal health care sector.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.308
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it