American public opinion on artificial intelligence in healthcare.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
09
01
2023
accepted:
15
10
2023
medline:
13
11
2023
pubmed:
9
11
2023
entrez:
9
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Billions of dollars are being invested into developing medical artificial intelligence (AI) systems and yet public opinion of AI in the medical field seems to be mixed. Although high expectations for the future of medical AI do exist in the American public, anxiety and uncertainty about what it can do and how it works is widespread. Continuing evaluation of public opinion on AI in healthcare is necessary to ensure alignment between patient attitudes and the technologies adopted. We conducted a representative-sample survey (total N = 203) to measure the trust of the American public towards medical AI. Primarily, we contrasted preferences for AI and human professionals to be medical decision-makers. Additionally, we measured expectations for the impact and use of medical AI in the future. We present four noteworthy results: (1) The general public strongly prefers human medical professionals make medical decisions, while at the same time believing they are more likely to make culturally biased decisions than AI. (2) The general public is more comfortable with a human reading their medical records than an AI, both now and "100 years from now." (3) The general public is nearly evenly split between those who would trust their own doctor to use AI and those who would not. (4) Respondents expect AI will improve medical treatment but more so in the distant future than immediately.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37943752
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294028
pii: PONE-D-23-00691
pmc: PMC10635466
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0294028Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Rojahn et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Mar;68(668):143-144
pubmed: 29472224
Prog Brain Res. 2020;253:263-282
pubmed: 32771128
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2021 Jan-Mar;37(1):28-34
pubmed: 34103818
Lancet Digit Health. 2021 Sep;3(9):e599-e611
pubmed: 34446266
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 25;21(3):e12422
pubmed: 30907742
Acad Radiol. 2021 Jun;28(6):834-840
pubmed: 32414637
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015 Feb;144(1):114-26
pubmed: 25401381
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021 Apr 10;21(1):125
pubmed: 33836752
Ann Surg. 2018 Jul;268(1):70-76
pubmed: 29389679
Am J Med. 2019 Jul;132(7):795-801
pubmed: 30710543
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Jul 22;20(1):170
pubmed: 32698869
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 20;21(3):e12802
pubmed: 30892270
Lab Med. 2020 Nov 2;51(6):649-654
pubmed: 32417927
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Jul 10;20(14):
pubmed: 32664432
Milbank Q. 2001;79(4):613-39, v
pubmed: 11789119
Br J Dermatol. 2020 Sep;183(3):423-430
pubmed: 31960407
Metabolism. 2017 Apr;69S:S36-S40
pubmed: 28126242
NPJ Digit Med. 2018 Oct 2;1:53
pubmed: 31304332
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2022 Jan;213:106541
pubmed: 34837860
Annu Rev Public Health. 2019 Apr 1;40:487-500
pubmed: 30566385
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jul 13;22(7):e16649
pubmed: 32673231
Br J Gen Pract. 2009 Apr;59(561):e116-33
pubmed: 19341547
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2021 Sep-Oct;50(5):614-619
pubmed: 32680632
Reproduction. 2019 Oct;158(4):R139-R154
pubmed: 30970326
Bioethics. 2022 Feb;36(2):154-161
pubmed: 34142373