Patient Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Focus Group Study for Diagnostic Communication and Tool Implementation
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.
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 | 0.024 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".