Primary Care Providers Acceptance of Generative AI Responses to Patient Portal Messages.

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Amarpreet Kaur, Alex Budko, Katrina Liu, Bryan D Steitz, Kevin B Johnson
{"title":"Primary Care Providers Acceptance of Generative AI Responses to Patient Portal Messages.","authors":"Amarpreet Kaur, Alex Budko, Katrina Liu, Bryan D Steitz, Kevin B Johnson","doi":"10.1055/a-2565-9155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient portals bridge patient and provider communications but exacerbate physician and nursing burnout. Large language models (LLMs) can generate message responses that are viewed favorably by healthcare professionals; however, these studies have not included diverse message types or new prompt-engineering strategies. Our goal is to investigate and compare the quality and precision GPT-generated message responses versus real doctor responses across the spectrum of message types within a patient portal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used prompt engineering techniques to craft synthetic provider responses tailored to adult primary care patients. We enrolled a sample of primary care providers in a cross-sectional study to compare authentic with synthetic patient portal message responses, generated by GPT-3.5-turbo, July 2023 version (GPT). The survey assessed each response's empathy, relevance, medical accuracy, and readability on a scale from 0 to 5. Respondents were asked to identify responses that were GPT-generated vs. provider-generated. Mean scores for all metrics were computed for subsequent analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 49 health care providers participated in the survey (59% completion rate), comprising 16 physicians and 32 advanced practice providers (APPs). In comparison to responses generated by real doctors, GPT-generated responses scored statistically significantly higher than doctors in two of the four parameters: empathy (p<0.05) and readability (p<0.05). However, no statistically significant difference was observed for relevance and accuracy (p > 0.05). Although readability scores were significantly different, the absolute difference was small, and the clinical significance of this finding remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings affirm the potential of GPT-generated message responses to achieve comparable levels of empathy, relevance, and readability to those found in typical responses crafted by healthcare providers. Additional studies should be done within provider workflows and with careful evaluation of patient attitudes and concerns related to the ethics as well as the quality of generated responses in all settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2565-9155","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient portals bridge patient and provider communications but exacerbate physician and nursing burnout. Large language models (LLMs) can generate message responses that are viewed favorably by healthcare professionals; however, these studies have not included diverse message types or new prompt-engineering strategies. Our goal is to investigate and compare the quality and precision GPT-generated message responses versus real doctor responses across the spectrum of message types within a patient portal.

Methods: We used prompt engineering techniques to craft synthetic provider responses tailored to adult primary care patients. We enrolled a sample of primary care providers in a cross-sectional study to compare authentic with synthetic patient portal message responses, generated by GPT-3.5-turbo, July 2023 version (GPT). The survey assessed each response's empathy, relevance, medical accuracy, and readability on a scale from 0 to 5. Respondents were asked to identify responses that were GPT-generated vs. provider-generated. Mean scores for all metrics were computed for subsequent analysis.

Results: A total of 49 health care providers participated in the survey (59% completion rate), comprising 16 physicians and 32 advanced practice providers (APPs). In comparison to responses generated by real doctors, GPT-generated responses scored statistically significantly higher than doctors in two of the four parameters: empathy (p<0.05) and readability (p<0.05). However, no statistically significant difference was observed for relevance and accuracy (p > 0.05). Although readability scores were significantly different, the absolute difference was small, and the clinical significance of this finding remains uncertain.

Conclusion: Our findings affirm the potential of GPT-generated message responses to achieve comparable levels of empathy, relevance, and readability to those found in typical responses crafted by healthcare providers. Additional studies should be done within provider workflows and with careful evaluation of patient attitudes and concerns related to the ethics as well as the quality of generated responses in all settings.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信