{"title":"医疗保健中的人工智能：医疗专业人员接受和实施中的制度挑战的范围审查","authors":"Latifun Nesa, Moustaq Karim Khan Rony, Sharmin Chowdhury, Most. Baby Naznin, Kanika Halder, Mst. Husne Ara, Nurun Naher Akter, Kobory Mankhin, Jinat Mohasana Shabnur, Jahangir Alam, Mst. Rina Parvin, Daifallah M. Alrazeeni, Fazila Akter","doi":"10.1111/jep.70170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming healthcare at a fast pace, showing promising potential to enhance medical diagnosis, inform treatment strategies, and support patient care. These advancements have the potential to improve clinical outcomes, streamline workflows, and reduce errors. However, comprehending the level of acceptance among medical professionals and the institutional challenges involved in implementing AI is essential.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>This scoping review aimed to identify the acceptance of AI among medical professionals and to identify the institutional barriers that impede its widespread implementation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A scoping review methodology was applied to analyze studies published between 2015 and 2025. The review included peer-reviewed articles focusing on medical professionals' perspectives on AI adoption, including factors like acceptance, attitudes, benefits, and challenges. Key databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore were searched to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant research. Data were extracted and categorized into themes related to AI acceptance, barriers, and institutional challenges.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Two major themes emerged: (1) medical professionals' acceptance of AI and (2) institutional challenges to implementation. AI tools used in diagnostic imaging, administrative support, and natural language processing were generally well accepted due to perceived efficiency and accuracy. Conversely, predictive models and clinical decision support systems received cautious responses, primarily due to concerns about interpretability, trust, and autonomy. Institutional barriers included limited infrastructure, lack of integration with existing health records, financial constraints, inadequate training opportunities, and regulatory ambiguities regarding liability, privacy, and fairness.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>While AI holds transformative potential for healthcare, its successful adoption requires addressing both human and systemic factors. Enhancing AI literacy, investing in infrastructure, and developing clear regulatory guidelines are critical to overcoming resistance and enabling meaningful integration.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Scoping Review of Medical Professionals' Acceptance and Institutional Challenges in Implementation\",\"authors\":\"Latifun Nesa, Moustaq Karim Khan Rony, Sharmin Chowdhury, Most. Baby Naznin, Kanika Halder, Mst. Husne Ara, Nurun Naher Akter, Kobory Mankhin, Jinat Mohasana Shabnur, Jahangir Alam, Mst. Rina Parvin, Daifallah M. Alrazeeni, Fazila Akter\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.70170\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming healthcare at a fast pace, showing promising potential to enhance medical diagnosis, inform treatment strategies, and support patient care. These advancements have the potential to improve clinical outcomes, streamline workflows, and reduce errors. However, comprehending the level of acceptance among medical professionals and the institutional challenges involved in implementing AI is essential.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aims</h3>\\n \\n <p>This scoping review aimed to identify the acceptance of AI among medical professionals and to identify the institutional barriers that impede its widespread implementation.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A scoping review methodology was applied to analyze studies published between 2015 and 2025. The review included peer-reviewed articles focusing on medical professionals' perspectives on AI adoption, including factors like acceptance, attitudes, benefits, and challenges. Key databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore were searched to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant research. Data were extracted and categorized into themes related to AI acceptance, barriers, and institutional challenges.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Two major themes emerged: (1) medical professionals' acceptance of AI and (2) institutional challenges to implementation. AI tools used in diagnostic imaging, administrative support, and natural language processing were generally well accepted due to perceived efficiency and accuracy. Conversely, predictive models and clinical decision support systems received cautious responses, primarily due to concerns about interpretability, trust, and autonomy. Institutional barriers included limited infrastructure, lack of integration with existing health records, financial constraints, inadequate training opportunities, and regulatory ambiguities regarding liability, privacy, and fairness.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>While AI holds transformative potential for healthcare, its successful adoption requires addressing both human and systemic factors. Enhancing AI literacy, investing in infrastructure, and developing clear regulatory guidelines are critical to overcoming resistance and enabling meaningful integration.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"31 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70170\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70170","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Scoping Review of Medical Professionals' Acceptance and Institutional Challenges in Implementation
Background
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming healthcare at a fast pace, showing promising potential to enhance medical diagnosis, inform treatment strategies, and support patient care. These advancements have the potential to improve clinical outcomes, streamline workflows, and reduce errors. However, comprehending the level of acceptance among medical professionals and the institutional challenges involved in implementing AI is essential.
Aims
This scoping review aimed to identify the acceptance of AI among medical professionals and to identify the institutional barriers that impede its widespread implementation.
Methods
A scoping review methodology was applied to analyze studies published between 2015 and 2025. The review included peer-reviewed articles focusing on medical professionals' perspectives on AI adoption, including factors like acceptance, attitudes, benefits, and challenges. Key databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore were searched to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant research. Data were extracted and categorized into themes related to AI acceptance, barriers, and institutional challenges.
Results
Two major themes emerged: (1) medical professionals' acceptance of AI and (2) institutional challenges to implementation. AI tools used in diagnostic imaging, administrative support, and natural language processing were generally well accepted due to perceived efficiency and accuracy. Conversely, predictive models and clinical decision support systems received cautious responses, primarily due to concerns about interpretability, trust, and autonomy. Institutional barriers included limited infrastructure, lack of integration with existing health records, financial constraints, inadequate training opportunities, and regulatory ambiguities regarding liability, privacy, and fairness.
Conclusions
While AI holds transformative potential for healthcare, its successful adoption requires addressing both human and systemic factors. Enhancing AI literacy, investing in infrastructure, and developing clear regulatory guidelines are critical to overcoming resistance and enabling meaningful integration.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
