Physicians behavioural intentions towards AI-based diabetes diagnostic interventions in India

Lack of integration of the AI system into the hospital/facility information system is a barrier in the inner setting domain.

“Also, the lack of integration of the AI system into the hospital/facility information system is another relevant concern that acts as a barrier [54,55,56].”

Concerns about data security are a barrier to AI adoption in diabetes management.

“Another fundamental barrier to consider is the concern about data security, liability, and how the system made the decision (black box problem) [54,55,57].”

Concerns about decision-making transparency (black box problem) are a barrier to AI adoption in diabetes management.

“Another fundamental barrier to consider is the concern about data security, liability, and how the system made the decision (black box problem) [54,55,57].”

Fear of job displacement or changes in clinical autonomy is a barrier in the outer setting domain.

“Also, the fear of job displacement or changes in clinical autonomy is another concern that is reported as a barrier [54].”

Improved clinical efficiency is a facilitator to AI adoption in diabetes management.

“The identified facilitators are an improved clinical efficiency [52,54,55]”

Limited training among healthcare workers is a barrier to AI adoption in diabetes management.

“The principal barrier related to the inner setting is the lack of adequate training or limited knowledge and training on the AI system [52,54,55].”

Ease of use is a facilitator to AI adoption in diabetes management.

“easiness of use [52,54]”

Only two included studies focused on AI as a tool for glycemic control and AI as a general tool for diagnostic intervention.

“with only two studies focused on AI as a tool for glycemic control and AI as a general tool for diagnostic intervention [54,55].”

All included studies described research conducted in primary care settings, except the study conducted by Roy et al., which was conducted in a clinic.

“All the included studies described research conducted in primary care settings, with the exception of the study conducted by Roy et al. [54], which was conducted in a clinic.”

Two quantitative cross-sectional studies were based on surveys.

“Two quantitative cross-sectional studies were based on surveys [54,56]”

The two cross-sectional studies presented as low-quality due to the lack of information during the description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the setting of the study.

“The two studies with a cross-sectional design presented as low-quality due to the lack of information during the description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria [54] and the setting of the study”