Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39476382›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024

Health Care Professionals' Experience of Using AI: Systematic Review With Narrative Synthesis.

Abimbola Ayorinde, Daniel Opoku Mensah, Julia Walsh, Iman Ghosh, Siti Aishah Ibrahim, Jeffry Hogg, Niels Peek, Frances Griffiths

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Abimbola AyorindeDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4915-5092
Daniel Opoku MensahDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5023-7722
Julia WalshDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9787-0349
Iman GhoshDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7073-7468
Siti Aishah IbrahimDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4029-9532
Jeffry HoggAI Digital Health Research and Policy Group, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8044-7790
Niels PeekDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6393-9969
Frances GriffithsDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4173-1438

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been a substantial increase in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) tools for clinical decision support. Historically, these were mostly knowledge-based systems, but recent advances include non-knowledge-based systems using some form of machine learning. The ability of health care professionals to trust technology and understand how it benefits patients or improves care delivery is known to be important for their adoption of that technology. For non-knowledge-based AI tools for clinical decision support, these issues are poorly understood.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to qualitatively synthesize evidence on the experiences of health care professionals in routinely using non-knowledge-based AI tools to support their clinical decision-making.

methodsIn June 2023, we searched 4 electronic databases, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science, with no language or date limit. We also contacted relevant experts and searched reference lists of the included studies. We included studies of any design that reported the experiences of health care professionals using non-knowledge-based systems for clinical decision support in their work settings. We completed double independent quality assessment for all included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We used a theoretically informed thematic approach to synthesize the findings.

resultsAfter screening 7552 titles and 182 full-text articles, we included 25 studies conducted in 9 different countries. Most of the included studies were qualitative (n=13), and the remaining were quantitative (n=9) and mixed methods (n=3). Overall, we identified 7 themes: health care professionals' understanding of AI applications, level of trust and confidence in AI tools, judging the value added by AI, data availability and limitations of AI, time and competing priorities, concern about governance, and collaboration to facilitate the implementation and use of AI. The most frequently occurring are the first 3 themes. For example, many studies reported that health care professionals were concerned about not understanding the AI outputs or the rationale behind them. There were issues with confidence in the accuracy of the AI applications and their recommendations. Some health care professionals believed that AI provided added value and improved decision-making, and some reported that it only served as a confirmation of their clinical judgment, while others did not find it useful at all.

conclusionsOur review identified several important issues documented in various studies on health care professionals' use of AI tools in real-world health care settings. Opinions of health care professionals regarding the added value of AI tools for supporting clinical decision-making varied widely, and many professionals had concerns about their understanding of and trust in this technology. The findings of this review emphasize the need for concerted efforts to optimize the integration of AI tools in real-world health care settings.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022336359; https://tinyurl.com/2yunvkmb.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHealth PersonnelClinical Decision-MakingDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHumansartificial intelligenceCDSSclinical decision support systemsclinician experiencedecision-makinghealth care deliveryhealth care professionalsquality assessment

Identifiers

PMID39476382
PMCPMC11561443

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.