Listening to Patients Voices: Examining Public Attitudes towards Use of AI in Healthcare (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Artificial intelligence (AI) holds great promise in transforming healthcare delivery. However, successful implementation of AI projects in healthcare depends on patients' acceptance and trust. There is only limited empirical research examining public perceptions, particularly on the use of personal health data in AI applications in healthcare. OBJECTIVE To examine public knowledge and comfort levels with AI use in healthcare, including use of personal health data with and without consent, and to assess how sociodemographic factors, digital literacy, and health conditions influence these perceptions METHODS We analyzed data from 6,904 Canadian adults who participated in the 2023 Canadian Digital Health Survey. AI-related knowledge and comfort levels were measured using ordinal scales. Sociodemographic characteristics, digital health literacy (assessed through an 8-item scale), and self-reported chronic health conditions were included as predictors. Ordinal logistic regression models were used to assess associations between these factors and AI-related attitudes. RESULTS 42.3% of respondents reported moderate AI knowledge, while only 7.8% were very knowledgeable. Overall, 44.6% were comfortable with AI in healthcare, increasing to 64.7% when data was used with consent, but decreasing when used without consent (52.6% uncomfortable). Respondents were most comfortable with AI for epidemic tracking and healthcare workflows, and less so for clinical tasks. Higher digital health literacy (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.03–1.04, p<0.001), male gender (OR: 1.55, p<0.001), and higher income (OR: 1.22, p<0.001) were significantly associated with greater AI knowledge. Older adults (65+), men, non-citizens, and individuals with multiple chronic conditions were more comfortable with AI in healthcare. Racial differences were evident, with White and "Other" racial groups exhibiting lower comfort levels with AI compared to Asian-origin respondents, while Black/African respondents were significantly less comfortable when personal data was used without consent. CONCLUSIONS The findings point to enhancing transparent policies, digital literacy, and ethical data governance as key to increasing public trust in AI-driven healthcare. Addressing privacy concerns and ensuring equitable AI integration can improve acceptance and patient engagement.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".