Attitudes of Anesthesiologists toward Artificial Intelligence in Anesthesia: A Multicenter, Mixed Qualitative-Quantitative Study.
anesthesia
anesthesiology
artificial intelligence
clinical decision support
machine learning
qualitative research
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Mar 2023
07 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
01
02
2023
revised:
16
02
2023
accepted:
01
03
2023
medline:
30
3
2023
entrez:
29
3
2023
pubmed:
30
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Artificial intelligence (AI) is predicted to play an increasingly important role in perioperative medicine in the very near future. However, little is known about what anesthesiologists know and think about AI in this context. This is important because the successful introduction of new technologies depends on the understanding and cooperation of end users. We sought to investigate how much anesthesiologists know about AI and what they think about the introduction of AI-based technologies into the clinical setting. In order to better understand what anesthesiologists think of AI, we recruited 21 anesthesiologists from 2 university hospitals for face-to-face structured interviews. The interview transcripts were subdivided sentence-by-sentence into discrete statements, and statements were then grouped into key themes. Subsequently, a survey of closed questions based on these themes was sent to 70 anesthesiologists from 3 university hospitals for rating. In the interviews, the base level of knowledge of AI was good at 86 of 90 statements (96%), although awareness of the potential applications of AI in anesthesia was poor at only 7 of 42 statements (17%). Regarding the implementation of AI in anesthesia, statements were split roughly evenly between pros (46 of 105, 44%) and cons (59 of 105, 56%). Interviewees considered that AI could usefully be used in diverse tasks such as risk stratification, the prediction of vital sign changes, or as a treatment guide. The validity of these themes was probed in a follow-up survey of 70 anesthesiologists with a response rate of 70%, which confirmed an overall positive view of AI in this group. Anesthesiologists hold a range of opinions, both positive and negative, regarding the application of AI in their field of work. Survey-based studies do not always uncover the full breadth of nuance of opinion amongst clinicians. Engagement with specific concerns, both technical and ethical, will prove important as this technology moves from research to the clinic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36983099
pii: jcm12062096
doi: 10.3390/jcm12062096
pmc: PMC10054443
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Med Teach. 2020 Aug;42(8):846-854
pubmed: 32356468
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
Psychol Health. 2010 Dec;25(10):1229-45
pubmed: 20204937
Lancet. 2021 May 29;397(10289):2038
pubmed: 34062138
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2009 May;35(5):239-46
pubmed: 19480375
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Eur Radiol. 2021 Sep;31(9):7058-7066
pubmed: 33744991
Nat Med. 2019 Jan;25(1):24-29
pubmed: 30617335
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285
Eur J Gen Pract. 2018 Dec;24(1):120-124
pubmed: 29202616
BMJ. 2020 Mar 25;368:m689
pubmed: 32213531
Anesth Analg. 2016 Jan;122(1):1-3
pubmed: 26678458
Eur J Gen Pract. 2017 Dec;23(1):271-273
pubmed: 29185831
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Sep 11;3:118
pubmed: 32984550
J Thorac Imaging. 2020 Jul;35(4):255-259
pubmed: 31609778
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 20;21(3):e12802
pubmed: 30892270
World Neurosurg. 2021 Feb;146:e724-e730
pubmed: 33248306
Fam Med. 2003 Apr;35(4):257-60
pubmed: 12729309
J Intensive Care. 2021 May 6;9(1):38
pubmed: 33952341
Eur Radiol. 2019 Apr;29(4):1640-1646
pubmed: 29980928
N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 28;377(13):1209-1211
pubmed: 28953443
Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542(7639):115-118
pubmed: 28117445
Comput Hum Behav Rep. 2020 Jan-Jul;1:100014
pubmed: 34235291
Yearb Med Inform. 2019 Aug;28(1):41-46
pubmed: 31022751
JAMA. 2020 Mar 17;323(11):1052-1060
pubmed: 32065827
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Nov 30;20(1):310
pubmed: 33256715
Anesth Analg. 2017 Feb;124(2):446-455
pubmed: 27482773
BMJ. 2016 Feb 10;352:i563
pubmed: 26865572
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Jun 27;17(1):92
pubmed: 28655299
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
Pediatr Radiol. 2022 Jan;52(1):30-41
pubmed: 34642789
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Nov 1;178(11):1544-1547
pubmed: 30128552
Artif Intell Med. 2021 Nov;121:102190
pubmed: 34763805
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020 Dec;162(12):3081-3091
pubmed: 32812067
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 5;23(3):e26646
pubmed: 33666563
Am Econ Rev. 2017 May;107(5):476-480
pubmed: 28781376
Nat Med. 2019 Jan;25(1):44-56
pubmed: 30617339
J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 Dec;15(12):1753-1757
pubmed: 29477289
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Nov 14;12:131
pubmed: 23148492
Anesthesiology. 2020 Feb;132(2):379-394
pubmed: 31939856