Michaela Soellner1, Joerg Koenigstorfer2. 1. Chair of Sport and Health Management, Technical University of Munich, Campus D - Uptown Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 60/62, 80992, Munich, Germany. 2. Chair of Sport and Health Management, Technical University of Munich, Campus D - Uptown Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 60/62, 80992, Munich, Germany. joerg.koenigstorfer@tum.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advanced analytics, such as artificial intelligence (AI), increasingly gain relevance in medicine. However, patients' responses to the involvement of AI in the care process remains largely unclear. The study aims to explore whether individuals were more likely to follow a recommendation when a physician used AI in the diagnostic process considering a highly (vs. less) severe disease compared to when the physician did not use AI or when AI fully replaced the physician. METHODS: Participants from the USA (n = 452) were randomly assigned to a hypothetical scenario where they imagined that they received a treatment recommendation after a skin cancer diagnosis (high vs. low severity) from a physician, a physician using AI, or an automated AI tool. They then indicated their intention to follow the recommendation. Regression analyses were used to test hypotheses. Beta coefficients (ß) describe the nature and strength of relationships between predictors and outcome variables; confidence intervals [CI] excluding zero indicate significant mediation effects. RESULTS: The total effects reveal the inferiority of automated AI (ß = .47, p = .001 vs. physician; ß = .49, p = .001 vs. physician using AI). Two pathways increase intention to follow the recommendation. When a physician performs the assessment (vs. automated AI), the perception that the physician is real and present (a concept called social presence) is high, which increases intention to follow the recommendation (ß = .22, 95% CI [.09; 0.39]). When AI performs the assessment (vs. physician only), perceived innovativeness of the method is high, which increases intention to follow the recommendation (ß = .15, 95% CI [- .28; - .04]). When physicians use AI, social presence does not decrease and perceived innovativeness increases. CONCLUSION: Pairing AI with a physician in medical diagnosis and treatment in a hypothetical scenario using topical therapy and oral medication as treatment recommendations leads to a higher intention to follow the recommendation than AI on its own. The findings might help develop practice guidelines for cases where AI involvement benefits outweigh risks, such as using AI in pathology and radiology, to enable augmented human intelligence and inform physicians about diagnoses and treatments.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Advanced analytics, such as artificial intelligence (AI), increasingly gain relevance in medicine. However, patients' responses to the involvement of AI in the care process remains largely unclear. The study aims to explore whether individuals were more likely to follow a recommendation when a physician used AI in the diagnostic process considering a highly (vs. less) severe disease compared to when the physician did not use AI or when AI fully replaced the physician. METHODS:Participants from the USA (n = 452) were randomly assigned to a hypothetical scenario where they imagined that they received a treatment recommendation after a skin cancer diagnosis (high vs. low severity) from a physician, a physician using AI, or an automated AI tool. They then indicated their intention to follow the recommendation. Regression analyses were used to test hypotheses. Beta coefficients (ß) describe the nature and strength of relationships between predictors and outcome variables; confidence intervals [CI] excluding zero indicate significant mediation effects. RESULTS: The total effects reveal the inferiority of automated AI (ß = .47, p = .001 vs. physician; ß = .49, p = .001 vs. physician using AI). Two pathways increase intention to follow the recommendation. When a physician performs the assessment (vs. automated AI), the perception that the physician is real and present (a concept called social presence) is high, which increases intention to follow the recommendation (ß = .22, 95% CI [.09; 0.39]). When AI performs the assessment (vs. physician only), perceived innovativeness of the method is high, which increases intention to follow the recommendation (ß = .15, 95% CI [- .28; - .04]). When physicians use AI, social presence does not decrease and perceived innovativeness increases. CONCLUSION:Pairing AI with a physician in medical diagnosis and treatment in a hypothetical scenario using topical therapy and oral medication as treatment recommendations leads to a higher intention to follow the recommendation than AI on its own. The findings might help develop practice guidelines for cases where AI involvement benefits outweigh risks, such as using AI in pathology and radiology, to enable augmented human intelligence and inform physicians about diagnoses and treatments.
Authors: H A Haenssle; C Fink; R Schneiderbauer; F Toberer; T Buhl; A Blum; A Kalloo; A Ben Hadj Hassen; L Thomas; A Enk; L Uhlmann Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Victoria A Shaffer; C Adam Probst; Edgar C Merkle; Hal R Arkes; Mitchell A Medow Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Quirine E W van der Zander; Mirjam C M van der Ende-van Loon; Janneke M M Janssen; Bjorn Winkens; Fons van der Sommen; Ad A M Masclee; Erik J Schoon Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 4.996