Facilitating public involvement in research about healthcare AI: A scoping review of empirical methods.

Autor: Frost EK; Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health and Society, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Australia. Electronic address: emmaf@uow.edu.au., Bosward R; Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health and Society, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Australia. Electronic address: rb325@uowmail.edu.au., Aquino YSJ; Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health and Society, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Australia. Electronic address: yaquino@uow.edu.au., Braunack-Mayer A; Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health and Society, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Australia. Electronic address: abmayer@uow.edu.au., Carter SM; Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health and Society, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Australia. Electronic address: stacyc@uow.edu.au.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: International journal of medical informatics [Int J Med Inform] 2024 Jun; Vol. 186, pp. 105417. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Mar 22.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105417
Abstrakt: Objective: With the recent increase in research into public views on healthcare artificial intelligence (HCAI), the objective of this review is to examine the methods of empirical studies on public views on HCAI. We map how studies provided participants with information about HCAI, and we examine the extent to which studies framed publics as active contributors to HCAI governance.
Materials and Methods: We searched 5 academic databases and Google Advanced for empirical studies investigating public views on HCAI. We extracted information including study aims, research instruments, and recommendations.
Results: Sixty-two studies were included. Most were quantitative (N = 42). Most (N = 47) reported providing participants with background information about HCAI. Despite this, studies often reported participants' lack of prior knowledge about HCAI as a limitation. Over three quarters (N = 48) of the studies made recommendations that envisaged public views being used to guide governance of AI.
Discussion: Provision of background information is an important component of facilitating research with publics on HCAI. The high proportion of studies reporting participants' lack of knowledge about HCAI as a limitation reflects the need for more guidance on how information should be presented. A minority of studies adopted technocratic positions that construed publics as passive beneficiaries of AI, rather than as active stakeholders in HCAI design and implementation.
Conclusion: This review draws attention to how public roles in HCAI governance are constructed in empirical studies. To facilitate active participation, we recommend that research with publics on HCAI consider methodological designs that expose participants to diverse information sources.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: