ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
A qualitative interview study investigating patient, health professional, and developer perspectives on real-world implementation of patient-centered AI systems.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems in healthcare often fail to improve patient outcomes despite high development accuracy. We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 18), health professionals (n = 8), and AI developers (n = 8), using a postpartum depression risk algorithm as a use case. Through thematic analysis informed by sociotechnical frameworks, we identified six themes: harm mitigation, clinical utility, communication strategies, data quality, privacy/security, and responsible governance. All stakeholders emphasized that patient-centered AI must provide actionable benefits while minimizing bias, stigma, and anxiety. Patients wanted professional interpretation of AI outputs. Participants identified tensions between explainability and accuracy, varying patient preferences for accessing predictions, and unclear accountability when AI recommendations cause adverse outcomes. Our findings support patient-centered implementation through four strategies: providing professionals with competencies and protected time; engaging stakeholders throughout development; offering flexible communication accommodating diverse health literacy; and establishing multi-layered governance with shared accountability across developers, professionals, and institutions.
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.