Physicians' Perspectives on AI in Clinical Decision Support Systems: Interview Study of the CURATE.AI Personalized Dose Optimization Platform.

Physicians play a key role in integrating new clinical technology into care practices through user feedback and growth propositions to developers of the technology. As physicians are stakeholders involved through the technology iteration process, understanding their roles as users can provide nuanced insights into the workings of these technologies that are being explored. Therefore, understanding physicians' perceptions can be critical toward clinical validation, implementation, and downstream adoption. Given the increasing prevalence of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs), there remains a need to gain an in-depth understanding of physicians' perceptions and expectations toward their downstream implementation. This paper explores physicians' perceptions of integrating CURATE.AI, a novel artificial intelligence (AI)-based and clinical stage personalized dosing CDSSs, into clinical practice. This study aims to understand physicians' perspectives of integrating CURATE.AI for clinical work and to gather insights on considerations of the implementation of AI-based CDSS tools. A total of 12 participants completed semistructured interviews examining their knowledge, experience, attitudes, risks, and future course of the personalized combination therapy dosing platform, CURATE.AI. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded manually. The data were thematically analyzed. Overall, 3 broad themes and 9 subthemes were identified through thematic analysis. The themes covered considerations that physicians perceived as significant across various stages of new technology development, including trial, clinical implementation, and mass adoption. The study laid out the various ways physicians interpreted an AI-based personalized dosing CDSS, CURATE.AI, for their clinical practice. The research pointed out that physicians' expectations during the different stages of technology exploration can be nuanced and layered with expectations of implementation that are relevant for technology developers and researchers.

Vijayakumar S ，Lee VV ，Leong QY ，Hong SJ ，Blasiak A ，Ho D ... -  《-》

Are physicians ready for precision antibiotic prescribing? A qualitative analysis of the acceptance of artificial intelligence-enabled clinical decision support systems in India and Singapore.

Huang Z ，George MM ，Tan YR ，Natarajan K ，Devasagayam E ，Tay E ，Manesh A ，Varghese GM ，Abraham OC ，Zachariah A ，Yap P ，Lall D ，Chow A ... -  《-》

Acceptance, Barriers, and Facilitators to Implementing Artificial Intelligence-Based Decision Support Systems in Emergency Departments: Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation.

Despite the increasing availability of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and rising expectation for CDSSs based on artificial intelligence (AI), little is known about the acceptance of AI-based CDSS by physicians and its barriers and facilitators in emergency care settings. We aimed to evaluate the acceptance, barriers, and facilitators to implementing AI-based CDSSs in the emergency care setting through the opinions of physicians on our newly developed, real-time AI-based CDSS, which alerts ED physicians by predicting aortic dissection based on numeric and text information from medical charts, by using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; for quantitative evaluation) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR; for qualitative evaluation) frameworks. This mixed methods study was performed from March to April 2021. Transitional year residents (n=6), emergency medicine residents (n=5), and emergency physicians (n=3) from two community, tertiary care hospitals in Japan were included. We first developed a real-time CDSS for predicting aortic dissection based on numeric and text information from medical charts (eg, chief complaints, medical history, vital signs) with natural language processing. This system was deployed on the internet, and the participants used the system with clinical vignettes of model cases. Participants were then involved in a mixed methods evaluation consisting of a UTAUT-based questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale (quantitative) and a CFIR-based semistructured interview (qualitative). Cronbach α was calculated as a reliability estimate for UTAUT subconstructs. Interviews were sampled, transcribed, and analyzed using the MaxQDA software. The framework analysis approach was used during the study to determine the relevance of the CFIR constructs. All 14 participants completed the questionnaires and interviews. Quantitative analysis revealed generally positive responses for user acceptance with all scores above the neutral score of 3.0. In addition, the mixed methods analysis identified two significant barriers (System Performance, Compatibility) and two major facilitators (Evidence Strength, Design Quality) for implementation of AI-based CDSSs in emergency care settings. Our mixed methods evaluation based on theoretically grounded frameworks revealed the acceptance, barriers, and facilitators of implementation of AI-based CDSS. Although the concern of system failure and overtrusting of the system could be barriers to implementation, the locality of the system and designing an intuitive user interface could likely facilitate the use of optimal AI-based CDSS. Alleviating and resolving these factors should be key to achieving good user acceptance of AI-based CDSS.

Fujimori R ，Liu K ，Soeno S ，Naraba H ，Ogura K ，Hara K ，Sonoo T ，Ogura T ，Nakamura K ，Goto T ... -  《-》

Clinicians' roles and necessary levels of understanding in the use of artificial intelligence: A qualitative interview study with German medical students.

Artificial intelligence-driven Clinical Decision Support Systems (AI-CDSS) are being increasingly introduced into various domains of health care for diagnostic, prognostic, therapeutic and other purposes. A significant part of the discourse on ethically appropriate conditions relate to the levels of understanding and explicability needed for ensuring responsible clinical decision-making when using AI-CDSS. Empirical evidence on stakeholders' viewpoints on these issues is scarce so far. The present study complements the empirical-ethical body of research by, on the one hand, investigating the requirements for understanding and explicability in depth with regard to the rationale behind them. On the other hand, it surveys medical students at the end of their studies as stakeholders, of whom little data is available so far, but for whom AI-CDSS will be an important part of their medical practice. Fifteen semi-structured qualitative interviews (each lasting an average of 56 min) were conducted with German medical students to investigate their perspectives and attitudes on the use of AI-CDSS. The problem-centred interviews draw on two hypothetical case vignettes of AI-CDSS employed in nephrology and surgery. Interviewees' perceptions and convictions of their own clinical role and responsibilities in dealing with AI-CDSS were elicited as well as viewpoints on explicability as well as the necessary level of understanding and competencies needed on the clinicians' side. The qualitative data were analysed according to key principles of qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz). In response to the central question about the necessary understanding of AI-CDSS tools and the emergence of their outputs as well as the reasons for the requirements placed on them, two types of argumentation could be differentiated inductively from the interviewees' statements: the first type, the clinician as a systemic trustee (or "the one relying"), highlights that there needs to be empirical evidence and adequate approval processes that guarantee minimised harm and a clinical benefit from the employment of an AI-CDSS. Based on proof of these requirements, the use of an AI-CDSS would be appropriate, as according to "the one relying", clinicians should choose those measures that statistically cause the least harm. The second type, the clinician as an individual expert (or "the one controlling"), sets higher prerequisites that go beyond ensuring empirical evidence and adequate approval processes. These higher prerequisites relate to the clinician's necessary level of competence and understanding of how a specific AI-CDSS works and how to use it properly in order to evaluate its outputs and to mitigate potential risks for the individual patient. Both types are unified in their high esteem of evidence-based clinical practice and the need to communicate with the patient on the use of medical AI. However, the interviewees' different conceptions of the clinician's role and responsibilities cause them to have different requirements regarding the clinician's understanding and explicability of an AI-CDSS beyond the proof of benefit. The study results highlight two different types among (future) clinicians regarding their view of the necessary levels of understanding and competence. These findings should inform the debate on appropriate training programmes and professional standards (e.g. clinical practice guidelines) that enable the safe and effective clinical employment of AI-CDSS in various clinical fields. While current approaches search for appropriate minimum requirements of the necessary understanding and competence, the differences between (future) clinicians in terms of their information and understanding needs described here can lead to more differentiated approaches to solutions.

Funer F ，Tinnemeyer S ，Liedtke W ，Salloch S ... -  《BMC Medical Ethics》

Doctors' perception on the ethical use of AI-enabled clinical decision support systems for antibiotic prescribing recommendations in Singapore.

The increased utilization of Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare changes practice and introduces ethical implications for AI adoption in medicine. We assess medical doctors' ethical stance in situations that arise in adopting an AI-enabled Clinical Decision Support System (AI-CDSS) for antibiotic prescribing decision support in a healthcare institution in Singapore. We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 doctors of varying medical specialties and designations between October 2022 and January 2023. Our interview guide was anchored on the four pillars of medical ethics. We used clinical vignettes with the following hypothetical scenarios: (1) Using an antibiotic AI-enabled CDSS's recommendations for a tourist, (2) Uncertainty about the AI-CDSS's recommendation of a narrow-spectrum antibiotic vs. concerns about antimicrobial resistance, (3) Patient refusing the "best treatment" recommended by the AI-CDSS, (4) Data breach. More than half of the participants only realized that the AI-enabled CDSS could have misrepresented non-local populations after being probed to think about the AI-CDSS's data source. Regarding prescribing a broad- or narrow-spectrum antibiotic, most participants preferred to exercise their clinical judgment over the AI-enabled CDSS's recommendations in their patients' best interest. Two-thirds of participants prioritized beneficence over patient autonomy by convincing patients who refused the best practice treatment to accept it. Many were unaware of the implications of data breaches. The current position on the legal liability concerning the use of AI-enabled CDSS is unclear in relation to doctors, hospitals and CDSS providers. Having a comprehensive ethical legal and regulatory framework, perceived organizational support, and adequate knowledge of AI and ethics are essential for successfully implementing AI in healthcare.

Huang Z ，Lim HY ，Ow JT ，Sun SH ，Chow A ... -  《Frontiers in Public Health》