Cited by 193Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence Applications

Exploring stakeholder attitudes towards AI in clinical practice

Open access
Scott, Ian A, Carter, Stacy M, Coiera, Enrico·2021·BMJ Health & Care Informatics

Abstract

Objectives: Different stakeholders may hold varying attitudes towards artificial intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare, which may constrain their acceptance if AI developers fail to take them into account. We set out to ascertain evidence of the attitudes of clinicians, consumers, managers, researchers, regulators and industry towards AI applications in healthcare. Methods: We undertook an exploratory analysis of articles whose titles or abstracts contained the terms ‘artificial intelligence’ or ‘AI’ and ‘medical’ or ‘healthcare’ and ‘attitudes’, ‘perceptions’, ‘opinions’, ‘views’, ‘expectations’. Using a snowballing strategy, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar for articles published 1 January 2010 through 31 May 2021. We selected articles relating to non-robotic clinician-facing AI applications used to support healthcare-related tasks or decision-making. Results: Across 27 studies, attitudes towards AI applications in healthcare, in general, were positive, more so for those with direct experience of AI, but provided certain safeguards were met. AI applications which automated data interpretation and synthesis were regarded more favourably by clinicians and consumers than those that directly influenced clinical decisions or potentially impacted clinician–patient relationships. Privacy breaches and personal liability for AI-related error worried clinicians, while loss of clinician oversight and inability to fully share in decision-making worried consumers. Both clinicians and consumers wanted AI-generated advice to be trustworthy, while industry groups emphasised AI benefits and wanted more data, funding and regulatory certainty. Discussion: Certain expectations of AI applications were common to many stakeholder groups from which a set of dependencies can be defined. Conclusion: Stakeholders differ in some but not all of their attitudes towards AI. Those developing and implementing applications should consider policies and processes that bridge attitudinal disconnects between different stakeholders.

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 · 10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100450

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [20]Pega Inc. What consumers really think about AI: a global study. Insights into the minds of consumers to help Businesses reshape their customer engagement strategies. Cambridge, MA: Pega, 2017. Available: https://www.ciosummits.com/what-consumers-really-think-about-ai.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scott, I. A., Carter, S. M., & Coiera, E.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Wollongong (AU)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Scott, Ian A
Venue
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2021-12
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
e100450
ISSN
2632-1009 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200394808
Cited by
193
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 14
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Health & Care Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
artificial intelligence in healthcare, stakeholder attitudes, clinician attitudes, consumer attitudes, AI acceptance, clinical decision support, privacy concerns, liability for AI errors, clinician oversight, regulatory certainty, clinician-patient relationship
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Attitude, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Names

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