Public trust of AI in healthcare in South Africa: results of a survey.

IF 3.1 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Donrich Thaldar, Dane Bottomley
{"title":"Public trust of AI in healthcare in South Africa: results of a survey.","authors":"Donrich Thaldar, Dane Bottomley","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01272-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare promises significant advancements in patient care, yet its success heavily relies on public trust and acceptance, particularly in diverse socio-economic contexts like South Africa. This study investigates South African residents' willingness to trust AI in healthcare decisions, exploring the impact of socio-demographic factors such as age and religion on their preferences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Utilizing a cross-sectional online survey distributed via Facebook, we gathered data from 341 respondents across South Africa. The survey assessed participants' preference for human versus AI doctors in serious health scenarios, alongside demographic information including age, gender, educational attainment, religion, and home language. Weighting adjustments were applied to align the sample with South Africa's demographic proportions for home language and gender. Data were analysed to explore correlations between these demographics and preferences for AI in healthcare.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant majority (73.7% weighted) expressed a preference for a human doctor over an AI doctor. Notably, the importance of religion (p < .001) and specific age groups (p = .025) significantly influenced preferences. A significant proportion of respondents for whom religion was \"not too important,\" as well as those in the 40-49 age group, preferred an AI doctor.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study underscores the need for innovative governance models tailored to resource-constrained settings, where traditional human-in-the-loop requirements may not always be feasible. Future research should explore how socio-cultural factors and trust dynamics influence public attitudes toward AI in healthcare and investigate models that ensure safety and accountability while addressing practical limitations in healthcare delivery systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"113"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12379453/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01272-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare promises significant advancements in patient care, yet its success heavily relies on public trust and acceptance, particularly in diverse socio-economic contexts like South Africa. This study investigates South African residents' willingness to trust AI in healthcare decisions, exploring the impact of socio-demographic factors such as age and religion on their preferences.

Methods: Utilizing a cross-sectional online survey distributed via Facebook, we gathered data from 341 respondents across South Africa. The survey assessed participants' preference for human versus AI doctors in serious health scenarios, alongside demographic information including age, gender, educational attainment, religion, and home language. Weighting adjustments were applied to align the sample with South Africa's demographic proportions for home language and gender. Data were analysed to explore correlations between these demographics and preferences for AI in healthcare.

Results: A significant majority (73.7% weighted) expressed a preference for a human doctor over an AI doctor. Notably, the importance of religion (p < .001) and specific age groups (p = .025) significantly influenced preferences. A significant proportion of respondents for whom religion was "not too important," as well as those in the 40-49 age group, preferred an AI doctor.

Conclusions: This study underscores the need for innovative governance models tailored to resource-constrained settings, where traditional human-in-the-loop requirements may not always be feasible. Future research should explore how socio-cultural factors and trust dynamics influence public attitudes toward AI in healthcare and investigate models that ensure safety and accountability while addressing practical limitations in healthcare delivery systems.

南非公众对人工智能在医疗保健中的信任:一项调查的结果。
背景:人工智能(AI)在医疗保健领域的整合有望在患者护理方面取得重大进展,但其成功在很大程度上依赖于公众的信任和接受,特别是在南非等不同的社会经济背景下。本研究调查了南非居民在医疗保健决策中信任人工智能的意愿,探讨了年龄和宗教等社会人口因素对他们偏好的影响。方法:利用通过Facebook分发的横断面在线调查,我们收集了来自南非341名受访者的数据。该调查评估了参与者在严重健康情况下对人类医生和人工智能医生的偏好,以及年龄、性别、受教育程度、宗教信仰和家庭语言等人口统计信息。采用加权调整使样本与南非的家庭语言和性别人口比例保持一致。对数据进行分析,以探索这些人口统计数据与医疗保健中人工智能偏好之间的相关性。结果:绝大多数人(73.7%加权)表示更喜欢人类医生而不是人工智能医生。值得注意的是,宗教的重要性(p结论:本研究强调了为资源受限环境量身定制创新治理模式的必要性,传统的人在循环中的要求可能并不总是可行的。未来的研究应该探索社会文化因素和信任动态如何影响公众对医疗保健中的人工智能的态度,并研究确保安全和问责的模型,同时解决医疗保健提供系统的实际限制。
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
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信