ReviewDigital health
Consumer opinion on the use of machine learning in healthcare settings: A qualitative systematic review.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Consumer Health Information: A Narrative Review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Review
- Exploring Parental Experiences of Childhood Ear Health Clinics and Their Acceptability of AI-Based Diagnostic Tools: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- How the affordance and psychological empowerment promoting AI-based medical consultation usage: A mixed-methods approach.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Given the increasing number of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) tools in healthcare, we aimed to gain an understanding of consumer perspectives on the use of AI/ML tools for healthcare diagnostics. Methods: We conducted a qualitative systematic review, following established standardized methods, of the existing literature indexed in the following databases up to 4 April 2022: OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science. Results: Fourteen studies were identified as appropriate for inclusion in the meta-synthesis and systematic review. Most studies ( Conclusion: The current evidence demonstrates consumers' understandings of AI/ML for medical diagnosis are complex. Consumers express a complex combination of both hesitancy and support towards AI/ML in healthcare diagnosis. Importantly, their views of the use of AI/ML in medical diagnosis are influenced by the perceived trustworthiness of their healthcare providers who use these AI/ML tools. Consumers recognize the potential for AI/ML tools to improve diagnostic accuracy, efficiency and access, and express a strong interest to be engaged in the development and implementation process of AI/ML into routine healthcare.
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.