Bourla A, Ferreri F, Ogorzelec L, Peretti CS, Guinchard C, Mouchabac S. Psychiatrists' Attitudes Toward Disruptive New Technologies: Mixed-Methods Study.
JMIR Ment Health 2018;
5:e10240. [PMID:
30552086 PMCID:
PMC6315247 DOI:
10.2196/10240]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2018] [Revised: 09/10/2018] [Accepted: 09/14/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Recent discoveries in the fields of machine learning (ML), Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA), computerized adaptive testing (CAT), digital phenotype, imaging, and biomarkers have brought about a new paradigm shift in medicine.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to explore psychiatrists' perspectives on this paradigm through the prism of new clinical decision support systems (CDSSs). Our primary objective was to assess the acceptability of these new technologies. Our secondary objective was to characterize the factors affecting their acceptability.
METHODS
A sample of psychiatrists was recruited through a mailing list. Respondents completed a Web-based survey. A quantitative study with an original form of assessment involving the screenplay method was implemented involving 3 scenarios, each featuring 1 of the 3 support systems, namely, EMA and CAT, biosensors comprising a connected wristband-based digital phenotype, and an ML-based blood test or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We investigated 4 acceptability domains based on International Organization for Standardization and Nielsen models (usefulness, usability, reliability, and risk).
RESULTS
We recorded 515 observations. Regarding our primary objective, overall acceptability was moderate. MRI coupled with ML was considered to be the most useful system, and the connected wristband was considered the least. All the systems were described as risky (410/515, 79.6%). Regarding our secondary objective, acceptability was strongly influenced by socioepidemiological variables (professional culture), such as gender, age, and theoretical approach.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first study to assess psychiatrists' views on new CDSSs. Data revealed moderate acceptability, but our analysis shows that this is more the result of the lack of knowledge about these new technologies rather than a strong rejection. Furthermore, we found strong correspondences between acceptability profiles and professional culture profiles. Many medical, forensics, and ethical issues were raised, including therapeutic relationship, data security, data storage, and privacy risk. It is essential for psychiatrists to receive training and become involved in the development of new technologies.
Collapse