ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
Just another tool in their repertoire: uncovering insights into public and patient perspectives on clinicians' use of machine learning in perioperative care.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Barriers and Facilitators to Patient Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Trust in Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems Among Health Care Workers: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Expectations of healthcare AI and the role of trust: understanding patient views on how AI will impact cost, access, and patient-provider relationships.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSuccessful implementation of machine learning-augmented clinical decision support systems (ML-CDSS) in perioperative care requires the prioritization of patient-centric approaches to ensure alignment with societal expectations. We assessed general public and surgical patient attitudes and perspectives on ML-CDSS use in perioperative care. MATERIALS AND
methodsA sequential explanatory study was conducted. Stage 1 collected public opinions through a survey. Stage 2 ascertained surgical patients' experiences and attitudes via focus groups and interviews.
resultsFor Stage 1, a total of 281 respondents' (140 males [49.8%]) data were considered. Among participants without ML awareness, males were almost three times more likely than females to report more acceptance (OR = 2.97; 95% CI, 1.36-6.49) and embrace (OR = 2.74; 95% CI, 1.23-6.09) of ML-CDSS use by perioperative teams. Males were almost twice as likely as females to report more acceptance across all perioperative phases with ORs ranging from 1.71 to 2.07. In Stage 2, insights from 10 surgical patients revealed unanimous agreement that ML-CDSS should primarily serve a supportive function. The pre- and post-operative phases were identified explicitly as forums where ML-CDSS can enhance care delivery. Patients requested for education on ML-CDSS's role in their care to be disseminated by surgeons across multiple platforms. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionThe general public and surgical patients are receptive to ML-CDSS use throughout their perioperative care provided its role is auxiliary to perioperative teams. However, the integration of ML-CDSS into perioperative workflows presents unique challenges for healthcare settings. Insights from this study can inform strategies to support large-scale implementation and adoption of ML-CDSS by patients in all perioperative phases. Key strategies to promote the feasibility and acceptability of ML-CDSS include clinician-led discussions about ML-CDSS's role in perioperative care, established metrics to evaluate the clinical utility of ML-CDSS, and patient education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.