ArticleResearch square2025
A qualitative Interview Study Investigating Patient, Health Professional, and Developer Perspectives on Real-World Implementation of Patient-Centered AI Systems.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Our objective was to triangulate patient, health professional, and developer perspectives for implementing patient-centered artificial intelligence (AI) systems. We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients (N = 18), health professionals (N = 8), and AI developers (N = 8). We created interview guides informed by frameworks in bioethics and health information informatics. We utilized a predictive algorithm for determining risk for postpartum depression as a use case to concretize our discussions. Our team analyzed transcripts from interview recordings using thematic, directed content analysis and the constant comparative process. Participants found mitigating potential harms caused by AI (e.g., bias, stigma, or patient anxiety) greatly important. They also believed that AI must provide clinical benefits by allowing health professionals and patients to easily take actions based on AI output. To take safe action, end users needed transparency to understand the AI's accuracy and predictors driving risk. Patient participants wanted health professionals to interpret AI output, but health professionals did not always feel they had the time or training to do so. Participants also raised concerns regarding how data quality may affect AI accuracy, who may be responsible for inappropriate actions taken based on AI, and issues regarding data security, privacy, and accessibility. Our results support real-world implementation of more patient-centered AI tools by: providing health professionals with competencies for discussing AI-based risks; engaging patients and health professionals throughout the development process; inclusively communicating AI output to health professionals and patients; and implementing multi-layer systems of AI governance.
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.