CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 131Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIElectronic Health Records Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Utopia versus dystopia: Professional perspectives on the impact of healthcare artificial intelligence on clinical roles and skills

Open access
Aquino, Yves Saint James, Rogers, Wendy A., Braunack-Mayer, Annette, Frazer, Helen, Win, Khin Than, Houssami, Nehmat, Degeling, Christopher, Semsarian, Christopher, Carter, Stacy M.·2023·International Journal of Medical Informatics
DOI 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104903
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Alongside the promise of improving clinical work, advances in healthcare artificial intelligence (AI) raise concerns about the risk of deskilling clinicians. This purpose of this study is to examine the issue of deskilling from the perspective of diverse group of professional stakeholders with knowledge and/or experiences in the development, deployment and regulation of healthcare AI. METHODS: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 72 professionals with AI expertise and/or professional or clinical expertise who were involved in development, deployment and/or regulation of healthcare AI. Data analysis using combined constructivist grounded theory and framework approach was performed concurrently with data collection. FINDINGS: Our analysis showed participants had diverse views on three contentious issues regarding AI and deskilling. The first involved competing views about the proper extent of AI-enabled automation in healthcare work, and which clinical tasks should or should not be automated. We identified a cluster of characteristics of tasks that were considered more suitable for automation. The second involved expectations about the impact of AI on clinical skills, and whether AI-enabled automation would lead to worse or better quality of healthcare. The third tension implicitly contrasted two models of healthcare work: a human-centric model and a technology-centric model. These models assumed different values and priorities for healthcare work and its relationship to AI-enabled automation. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that a diverse group of professional stakeholders involved in healthcare AI development, acquisition, deployment and regulation are attentive to the potential impact of healthcare AI on clinical skills, but have different views about the nature and valence (positive or negative) of this impact. Detailed engagement with different types of professional stakeholders allowed us to identify relevant concepts and values that could guide decisions about AI algorithm development and deployment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104903

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Langlotz, 2019, Will artificial intelligence replace radiologists? Radiology, Artif. Intell., 1, e190058
  2. Ritchie, 2003, Carrying out qualitative analysis, Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers., 2003, 219

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 131

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Aquino, Y. S. J., Rogers, W. A., Braunack-Mayer, A., Frazer, H., Win, K. T., Houssami, N., Degeling, C., Semsarian, C., & Carter, S. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Wollongong (AU)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Aquino, Yves Saint James
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-01
Volume
169
Pages
104903
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104903
OpenAlex
W4307902875
Cited by
131
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 14
FWCI
7.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (1181960)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
artificial intelligence in healthcare, deskilling, clinical skills, clinical roles, clinical tasks, quality of care, professional stakeholders, AI regulation
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Delivery of Health Care, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review