The Australian Values and Attitudes on AI (AVA-AI) Study: Methodologically Innovative National Survey about Adopting Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Social Services (Preprint)

Facilitating public involvement in research about healthcare AI: A scoping review of empirical methods

OBJECTIVE

With the recent increase in research into public views on healthcare artificial intelligence (HCAI), the objective of this review is to examine the methods of empirical studies on public views on HCAI. We map how studies provided participants with information about HCAI, and we examine the extent to which studies framed publics as active contributors to HCAI governance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched 5 academic databases and Google Advanced for empirical studies investigating public views on HCAI. We extracted information including study aims, research instruments, and recommendations.

RESULTS

Sixty-two studies were included. Most were quantitative (N = 42). Most (N = 47) reported providing participants with background information about HCAI. Despite this, studies often reported participants' lack of prior knowledge about HCAI as a limitation. Over three quarters (N = 48) of the studies made recommendations that envisaged public views being used to guide governance of AI.

DISCUSSION

Provision of background information is an important component of facilitating research with publics on HCAI. The high proportion of studies reporting participants' lack of knowledge about HCAI as a limitation reflects the need for more guidance on how information should be presented. A minority of studies adopted technocratic positions that construed publics as passive beneficiaries of AI, rather than as active stakeholders in HCAI design and implementation.

CONCLUSION

This review draws attention to how public roles in HCAI governance are constructed in empirical studies. To facilitate active participation, we recommend that research with publics on HCAI consider methodological designs that expose participants to diverse information sources.

Attitudes towards artificial intelligence in emergency medicine

OBJECTIVE

To assess Australian and New Zealand emergency clinicians' attitudes towards the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in emergency medicine.

METHODS

We undertook a qualitative interview-based study based on grounded theory. Participants were recruited through ED internal mailing lists, the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine Bulletin, and the research teams' personal networks. Interviews were transcribed, coded and themes presented.

RESULTS

Twenty-five interviews were conducted between July 2021 and May 2022. Thematic saturation was achieved after 22 interviews. Most participants were from either Western Australia (52%) or Victoria (16%) and were consultants (96%). More participants reported feeling optimistic (10/25) than neutral (6/25), pessimistic (2/25) or mixed (7/25) towards the use of AI in the ED. A minority expressed scepticism regarding the feasibility or value of implementing AI into the ED. Multiple potential risks and ethical issues were discussed by participants including skill loss from overreliance on AI, algorithmic bias, patient privacy and concerns over liability. Participants also discussed perceived inadequacies in existing information technology systems. Participants felt that AI technologies would be used as decision support tools and not replace the roles of emergency clinicians. Participants were not concerned about the impact of AI on their job security. Most (17/25) participants thought that AI would impact emergency medicine within the next 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency clinicians interviewed were generally optimistic about the use of AI in emergency medicine, so long as it is used as a decision support tool and they maintain the ability to override its recommendations.

Patients' Views on AI for Risk Prediction in Shared Decision-Making for Knee Replacement Surgery: Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in decision-making around knee replacement surgery is increasing, and this technology holds promise to improve the prediction of patient outcomes. Ambiguity surrounds the definition of AI, and there are mixed views on its application in clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to explore the understanding and attitudes of patients who underwent knee replacement surgery regarding AI in the context of risk prediction for shared clinical decision-making.

METHODS

This qualitative study involved patients who underwent knee replacement surgery at a tertiary referral center for joint replacement surgery. The participants were selected based on their age and sex. Semistructured interviews explored the participants' understanding of AI and their opinions on its use in shared clinical decision-making. Data collection and reflexive thematic analyses were conducted concurrently. Recruitment continued until thematic saturation was achieved.

RESULTS

Thematic saturation was achieved with 19 interviews and confirmed with 1 additional interview, resulting in 20 participants being interviewed (female participants: n=11, 55%; male participants: n=9, 45%; median age: 66 years). A total of 11 (55%) participants had a substantial postoperative complication. Three themes captured the participants' understanding of AI and their perceptions of its use in shared clinical decision-making. The theme Expectations captured the participants' views of themselves as individuals with the right to self-determination as they sought therapeutic solutions tailored to their circumstances, needs, and desires, including whether to use AI at all. The theme Empowerment highlighted the potential of AI to enable patients to develop realistic expectations and equip them with personalized risk information to discuss in shared decision-making conversations with the surgeon. The theme Partnership captured the importance of symbiosis between AI and clinicians because AI has varied levels of interpretability and understanding of human emotions and empathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent knee replacement surgery in this study had varied levels of familiarity with AI and diverse conceptualizations of its definitions and capabilities. Educating patients about AI through nontechnical explanations and illustrative scenarios could help inform their decision to use it for risk prediction in the shared decision-making process with their surgeon. These findings could be used in the process of developing a questionnaire to ascertain the views of patients undergoing knee replacement surgery on the acceptability of AI in shared clinical decision-making. Future work could investigate the accuracy of this patient group's understanding of AI, beyond their familiarity with it, and how this influences their acceptance of its use. Surgeons may play a key role in finding a place for AI in the clinical setting as the uptake of this technology in health care continues to grow.

Artificial intelligence for secondary prevention of myocardial infarction: A qualitative study of patient and health professional perspectives

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) has potential to improve self-management of several chronic conditions. However, the perspective of patients and healthcare professionals regarding AI-enabled health management programs, which are key to successful implementation, remains poorly understood.

PURPOSE

To explore the opinions of people with a history of myocardial infarction (PHMI) and health professionals on the use of AI for secondary prevention of MI.

PROCEDURE

Three rounds of focus groups were conducted via videoconferencing with 38 participants: 22 PHMI and 16 health professionals.

FINDINGS

We identified 21 concepts stemming from participants' views, which we classified into five categories: Trust; Expected Functions; Adoption; Concerns; and Perceived Benefits. Trust covered the credibility of information and safety to believe health advice. Expected Functions covered tailored feedback and personalised advice. Adoption included usability features and overall interest in AI. Concerns originated from previous negative experience with AI. Perceived Benefits included the usefulness of AI to provide advice when regular contact with healthcare services is not feasible. Health professionals were more optimistic than PHMI about the usefulness of AI for improving health behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

Altogether, our findings provide key insights from end-users to improve the likelihood of successful implementation and adoption of AI-enabled systems in the context of MI, as an exemplar of broader applications in chronic disease management.

Practical, epistemic and normative implications of algorithmic bias in healthcare artificial intelligence: a qualitative study of multidisciplinary expert perspectives

BACKGROUND

There is a growing concern about artificial intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare that can disadvantage already under-represented and marginalised groups (eg, based on gender or race).

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives are to canvas the range of strategies stakeholders endorse in attempting to mitigate algorithmic bias, and to consider the ethical question of responsibility for algorithmic bias.

METHODOLOGY

The study involves in-depth, semistructured interviews with healthcare workers, screening programme managers, consumer health representatives, regulators, data scientists and developers.

RESULTS

Findings reveal considerable divergent views on three key issues. First, views on whether bias is a problem in healthcare AI varied, with most participants agreeing bias is a problem (which we call the bias-critical view), a small number believing the opposite (the bias-denial view), and some arguing that the benefits of AI outweigh any harms or wrongs arising from the bias problem (the bias-apologist view). Second, there was a disagreement on the strategies to mitigate bias, and who is responsible for such strategies. Finally, there were divergent views on whether to include or exclude sociocultural identifiers (eg, race, ethnicity or gender-diverse identities) in the development of AI as a way to mitigate bias.

CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE

Based on the views of participants, we set out responses that stakeholders might pursue, including greater interdisciplinary collaboration, tailored stakeholder engagement activities, empirical studies to understand algorithmic bias and strategies to modify dominant approaches in AI development such as the use of participatory methods, and increased diversity and inclusion in research teams and research participant recruitment and selection.

Australian women's judgements about using artificial intelligence to read mammograms in breast cancer screening

Objective

Mammographic screening for breast cancer is an early use case for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare. This is an active area of research, mostly focused on the development and evaluation of individual algorithms. A growing normative literature argues that AI systems should reflect human values, but it is unclear what this requires in specific AI implementation scenarios. Our objective was to understand women's values regarding the use of AI to read mammograms in breast cancer screening.

Methods

We ran eight online discussion groups with a total of 50 women, focused on their expectations and normative judgements regarding the use of AI in breast screening.

Results

Although women were positive about the potential of breast screening AI, they argued strongly that humans must remain as central actors in breast screening systems and consistently expressed high expectations of the performance of breast screening AI. Women expected clear lines of responsibility for decision-making, to be able to contest decisions, and for AI to perform equally well for all programme participants. Women often imagined both that AI might replace radiographers and that AI implementation might allow more women to be screened: screening programmes will need to communicate carefully about these issues.

Conclusions

To meet women's expectations, screening programmes should delay implementation until there is strong evidence that the use of AI systems improves screening performance, should ensure that human expertise and responsibility remain central in screening programmes, and should avoid using AI in ways that exacerbate inequities.