Multinational Attitudes Toward AI in Health Care and Diagnostics Among Hospital Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The successful implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care depends on its acceptance by key stakeholders, particularly patients, who are the primary beneficiaries of AI-driven outcomes. Objectives: To survey hospital patients to investigate their trust, concerns, and preferences toward the use of AI in health care and diagnostics and to assess the sociodemographic factors associated with patient attitudes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study developed and implemented an anonymous quantitative survey between February 1 and November 1, 2023, using a nonprobability sample at 74 hospitals in 43 countries. Participants included hospital patients 18 years of age or older who agreed with voluntary participation in the survey presented in 1 of 26 languages. Exposure: Information sheets and paper surveys handed out by hospital staff and posted in conspicuous hospital locations. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was participant responses to a 26-item instrument containing a general data section (8 items) and 3 dimensions (trust in AI, AI and diagnosis, preferences and concerns toward AI) with 6 items each. Subgroup analyses used cumulative link mixed and binary mixed-effects models. Results: In total, 13 806 patients participated, including 8951 (64.8%) in the Global North and 4855 (35.2%) in the Global South. Their median (IQR) age was 48 (34-62) years, and 6973 (50.5%) were male. The survey results indicated a predominantly favorable general view of AI in health care, with 57.6% of respondents (7775 of 13 502) expressing a positive attitude. However, attitudes exhibited notable variation based on demographic characteristics, health status, and technological literacy. Female respondents (3511 of 6318 [55.6%]) exhibited fewer positive attitudes toward AI use in medicine than male respondents (4057 of 6864 [59.1%]), and participants with poorer health status exhibited fewer positive attitudes toward AI use in medicine (eg, 58 of 199 [29.2%] with rather negative views) than patients with very good health (eg, 134 of 2538 [5.3%] with rather negative views). Conversely, higher levels of AI knowledge and frequent use of technology devices were associated with more positive attitudes. Notably, fewer than half of the participants expressed positive attitudes regarding all items pertaining to trust in AI. The lowest level of trust was observed for the accuracy of AI in providing information regarding treatment responses (5637 of 13 480 respondents [41.8%] trusted AI). Patients preferred explainable AI (8816 of 12 563 [70.2%]) and physician-led decision-making (9222 of 12 652 [72.9%]), even if it meant slightly compromised accuracy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of patient attitudes toward AI use in health care across 6 continents, findings indicated that tailored AI implementation strategies should take patient demographics, health status, and preferences for explainable AI and physician oversight into account.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".