Patient Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Focus Group Study for Diagnostic Communication and Tool Implementation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming health care, offering potential benefits in diagnosis, treatment, and workflow efficiency. However, limited research explores patient perspectives on AI, especially in its role in diagnosis and communication. This study examines patient perceptions of various AI applications, focusing on the diagnostic process and communication. Objective: This study aimed to examine patient perspectives on AI use in health care, particularly in diagnostic processes and communication, identifying key concerns, expectations, and opportunities to guide the development and implementation of AI tools. Methods: This study used a qualitative focus group methodology with co-design principles to explore patient and family member perspectives on AI in clinical practice. A single 2-hour session was conducted with 17 adult participants. The session included interactive activities and breakout sessions focused on five specific AI scenarios relevant to diagnosis and communication: (1) portal messaging, (2) radiology review, (3) digital scribe, (4) virtual human, and (5) decision support. The session was audio-recorded and transcribed, with facilitator notes and demographic questionnaires collected. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis by 2 independent researchers (GF and JB), with discrepancies resolved via consensus. Results: Participants reported varying comfort levels with AI applications contingent on the level of patient interaction, with digital scribe (average 4.24, range 2-5) and radiology review (average 4.00, range 2-5) being the highest, and virtual human (average 1.68, range 1-4) being the lowest. In total, five cross-cutting themes emerged: (1) validation (concerns about model reliability), (2) usability (impact on diagnostic processes), (3) transparency (expectations for disclosing AI usage), (4) opportunities (potential for AI to improve care), and (5) privacy (concerns about data security). Participants valued the co-design session and felt they had a significant say in the discussions. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of incorporating patient perspectives in the design and implementation of AI tools in health care. Transparency, human oversight, clear communication, and data privacy are crucial for patient trust and acceptance of AI in diagnostic processes. These findings inform strategies for individual clinicians, health care organizations, and policy makers to ensure responsible and patient-centered AI deployment 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 it