Clinical experience and perception of risk affect the acceptance and trust of using AI in medicine.

IF 3.2 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Frontiers in digital health Pub Date : 2025-09-02 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fdgth.2025.1620127
Peter J Schulz, Kalya M Kee, May O Lwin, Wilson W Goh, Kendrick Y Chia, Max F K Cheung, Thomas Y T Lam, Joseph J Y Sung
{"title":"Clinical experience and perception of risk affect the acceptance and trust of using AI in medicine.","authors":"Peter J Schulz, Kalya M Kee, May O Lwin, Wilson W Goh, Kendrick Y Chia, Max F K Cheung, Thomas Y T Lam, Joseph J Y Sung","doi":"10.3389/fdgth.2025.1620127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background & aims: </strong>As Artificial Intelligence (AI) is progressively making inroads into clinical practice, questions have arisen as to whether acceptance of AI is skewed towards certain medical practitioner segments, even within particular specializations. This study aimed to examine distinct AI attitudes (including trust and acceptance) and intended behaviors among clinicians from contrasting backgrounds and levels of seniority/experience when interacting with AI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Based on the results we divided participants into four groups, those who have (i) low experience and low risk perception, (ii) low experience and high risk perception, (iii) high experience and low risk perception, and (iv) high experience and perceived risk of AI use to be high. An ANCOVA model was constructed to test whether the four groups differ regarding their overall acceptance of AI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 319 gastroenterologists show the presence of four distinct clusters of clinicians based upon experience levels and perceived risk typologies. Analysis of cluster-based responses further revealed that acceptance of AI was not uniform. Our findings showed that clinician experience and risk perspective have an interactive role in influencing AI acceptance. Senior clinicians with low-risk perception were highly accepting of AI, but those with high-risk perception of AI were substantially less accepting. In contrast, junior clinicians were more inclined to embrace AI when they perceived high risk, yet they hesitated to adopt AI when the perceived risk was minimal.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>More experienced clinicians were more likely to embrace AI compared to their junior counterparts, particularly when they perceived the risk as low.</p>","PeriodicalId":73078,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in digital health","volume":"7 ","pages":"1620127"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12436303/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1620127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background & aims: As Artificial Intelligence (AI) is progressively making inroads into clinical practice, questions have arisen as to whether acceptance of AI is skewed towards certain medical practitioner segments, even within particular specializations. This study aimed to examine distinct AI attitudes (including trust and acceptance) and intended behaviors among clinicians from contrasting backgrounds and levels of seniority/experience when interacting with AI.

Methods: Based on the results we divided participants into four groups, those who have (i) low experience and low risk perception, (ii) low experience and high risk perception, (iii) high experience and low risk perception, and (iv) high experience and perceived risk of AI use to be high. An ANCOVA model was constructed to test whether the four groups differ regarding their overall acceptance of AI.

Results: Data from 319 gastroenterologists show the presence of four distinct clusters of clinicians based upon experience levels and perceived risk typologies. Analysis of cluster-based responses further revealed that acceptance of AI was not uniform. Our findings showed that clinician experience and risk perspective have an interactive role in influencing AI acceptance. Senior clinicians with low-risk perception were highly accepting of AI, but those with high-risk perception of AI were substantially less accepting. In contrast, junior clinicians were more inclined to embrace AI when they perceived high risk, yet they hesitated to adopt AI when the perceived risk was minimal.

Conclusions: More experienced clinicians were more likely to embrace AI compared to their junior counterparts, particularly when they perceived the risk as low.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

临床经验和风险感知影响人工智能医学应用的接受度和信任度。
背景与目的:随着人工智能(AI)逐渐进入临床实践,出现了一些问题,即人工智能的接受是否偏向于某些医疗从业者群体,即使是在特定的专业领域。本研究旨在研究不同背景和资历/经验水平的临床医生在与人工智能互动时不同的人工智能态度(包括信任和接受)和预期行为。方法:根据结果,我们将参与者分为四组,即(i)低经验和低风险感知,(ii)低经验和高风险感知,(iii)高经验和低风险感知,以及(iv)高经验和高感知的人工智能使用风险。构建ANCOVA模型来检验四组对人工智能的总体接受程度是否存在差异。结果:来自319名胃肠病学家的数据显示,根据经验水平和感知风险类型,存在四种不同的临床医生集群。对基于集群的反应的分析进一步表明,对人工智能的接受程度并不统一。我们的研究结果表明,临床医生的经验和风险视角在影响人工智能接受度方面具有互动作用。具有低风险感知的高级临床医生对人工智能的接受度较高,而具有高风险感知的高级临床医生对人工智能的接受度明显较低。相比之下,初级临床医生在感知到高风险时更倾向于接受人工智能,而在感知到风险最小时,他们对采用人工智能犹豫不决。结论:与资历较浅的临床医生相比,经验丰富的临床医生更有可能接受人工智能,尤其是当他们认为风险较低时。
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
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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