Preferences for the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Screening in Australia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

IF 3.4 3区医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2025-05-10 DOI:10.1007/s40271-025-00742-w

Maame Esi Woode, Udeni De Silva Perera, Chris Degeling, Yves Saint James Aquino, Nehmat Houssami, Stacy M Carter, Gang Chen

{"title":"Preferences for the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Screening in Australia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.","authors":"Maame Esi Woode, Udeni De Silva Perera, Chris Degeling, Yves Saint James Aquino, Nehmat Houssami, Stacy M Carter, Gang Chen","doi":"10.1007/s40271-025-00742-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Breast cancer screening is considered an effective early detection strategy. Artificial intelligence (AI) may both offer benefits and create risks for breast screening programmes. To use AI in health screening services, the views and expectations of consumers are critical. This study examined the preferences of Australian women regarding AI use in breast cancer screening and the impact of information on preferences using discrete choice experiments.Methods: The experiment presented two alternative screening services based on seven attributes (reading method, screening sensitivity, screening specificity, time between screening and receiving results, supporting evidence, fair representation, and who should be held accountable) to 2063 women aged between 40 and 74 years recruited from an online panel. Participants were randomised into two arms. Both received standard information on AI use in breast screening, but one arm received additional information on its potential benefits. Preferences for hypothetical breast cancer screening services were modelled using a random parameter logit model. Relative attribute importance and uptake rates were estimated.Results: Participants preferred mixed reading (radiologist + AI system) over the other two reading methods. They showed a strong preference for fewer missed cases with a high attribute relative importance. Fewer false positives and a shorter waiting time for results were also preferred. Strength of preferences for mixed reading was significantly higher compared to two radiologists when additional information on AI is provided, highlighting the impact of information.Conclusions: This study revealed the preferences among Australian women for the use of AI-driven breast cancer screening services. Results generally suggest women are open to their mammograms being read by both a radiologist and an AI-based system under certain conditions.","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00742-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Breast cancer screening is considered an effective early detection strategy. Artificial intelligence (AI) may both offer benefits and create risks for breast screening programmes. To use AI in health screening services, the views and expectations of consumers are critical. This study examined the preferences of Australian women regarding AI use in breast cancer screening and the impact of information on preferences using discrete choice experiments.

Methods: The experiment presented two alternative screening services based on seven attributes (reading method, screening sensitivity, screening specificity, time between screening and receiving results, supporting evidence, fair representation, and who should be held accountable) to 2063 women aged between 40 and 74 years recruited from an online panel. Participants were randomised into two arms. Both received standard information on AI use in breast screening, but one arm received additional information on its potential benefits. Preferences for hypothetical breast cancer screening services were modelled using a random parameter logit model. Relative attribute importance and uptake rates were estimated.

Results: Participants preferred mixed reading (radiologist + AI system) over the other two reading methods. They showed a strong preference for fewer missed cases with a high attribute relative importance. Fewer false positives and a shorter waiting time for results were also preferred. Strength of preferences for mixed reading was significantly higher compared to two radiologists when additional information on AI is provided, highlighting the impact of information.

Conclusions: This study revealed the preferences among Australian women for the use of AI-driven breast cancer screening services. Results generally suggest women are open to their mammograms being read by both a radiologist and an AI-based system under certain conditions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在澳大利亚使用人工智能进行乳腺癌筛查的偏好：一个离散选择实验。

背景：乳腺癌筛查被认为是一种有效的早期发现策略。人工智能（AI）可能为乳房筛查项目带来好处，也可能带来风险。要在健康筛查服务中使用人工智能，消费者的意见和期望至关重要。本研究考察了澳大利亚女性在乳腺癌筛查中使用人工智能的偏好，以及使用离散选择实验的信息对偏好的影响。方法：实验基于七个属性（阅读方法、筛查敏感性、筛查特异性、筛查与接收结果之间的时间、支持证据、公平代表性和谁应该负责）向从在线小组中招募的2063名年龄在40至74岁之间的女性提供两种可选的筛查服务。参与者被随机分为两组。两组都获得了关于人工智能在乳房筛查中的应用的标准信息，但一组获得了关于其潜在益处的额外信息。使用随机参数logit模型对假设的乳腺癌筛查服务的偏好进行建模。估计了相对属性的重要性和吸收率。结果：与其他两种阅读方法相比，参与者更喜欢混合阅读（放射科医生+人工智能系统）。他们表现出强烈的偏好较少的漏诊病例与高属性的相对重要性。更少的假阳性和更短的等待结果的时间也是可取的。当提供有关人工智能的额外信息时，与两名放射科医生相比，混合阅读的偏好强度明显更高，突出了信息的影响。结论：本研究揭示了澳大利亚女性对使用人工智能驱动的乳腺癌筛查服务的偏好。结果通常表明，在某些条件下，女性对放射科医生和基于人工智能的系统同时读取她们的乳房x光片持开放态度。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-

CiteScore

6.60

自引率

8.30%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence. The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making. Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances. All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.