Parental Attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence-Driven Precision Medicine Technologies in Pediatric Healthcare

Abstract

Precision medicine relies upon artificial intelligence (AI)-driven technologies that raise ethical and practical concerns. In this study, we developed and validated a measure of parental openness and concerns with AI-driven technologies in their child’s healthcare. In this cross-sectional survey, we enrolled parents of children <18 years in 2 rounds for exploratory (n = 418) and confirmatory (n = 386) factor analysis. We developed a 12-item measure of parental openness to AI-driven technologies, and a 33-item measure identifying concerns that parents found important when considering these technologies. We also evaluated associations between openness and attitudes, beliefs, personality traits, and demographics. Parents (N = 804) reported mean openness to AI-driven technologies of M = 3.4/5, SD = 0.9. We identified seven concerns that parents considered important when evaluating these technologies: quality/accuracy, privacy, shared decision making, convenience, cost, human element of care, and social justice. In multivariable linear regression, parental openness was positively associated with quality (beta = 0.23), convenience (beta = 0.16), and cost (beta = 0.11), as well as faith in technology (beta = 0.23) and trust in health information systems (beta = 0.12). Parental openness was negatively associated with the perceived importance of shared decision making (beta = −0.16) and being female (beta = −0.12). Developers might support parental openness by addressing these concerns during the development and implementation of novel AI-driven technologies.

Exploring stakeholder attitudes towards AI in clinical practice

“… 23 The majority (>70%) of parents of paediatric patients (n=804) reported openness to AI-driven tools if accuracy was proven, privacy and shared decision-making were protected and care using AI was convenient, of low cost, and not in any way dehumanised. 24 Among 48 US dermatology patients, most (60%) anticipated earlier diagnosis and better care access, while 94% saw the main function of AI as offering second opinions to physicians, and perceived AI as having both strengths (69% believed AI to be very accurate most of the time) and weaknesses (85% expected rare but serious misdiagnoses). 25 A small study found 18 patients with meningioma wanted assurance that use of AI to allocate treatment was fair and equitable, that AI-mediated mistakes would be disclosed and reparations to patients forthcoming and that patient consent was obtained for any sharing of health data.…”

“…A total of 27 articles were included of which most (16, 59%) targeted clinicians, [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] 8 (30%) focused on consumers (including patients), [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] 1 (4%) on health executives 27 and 2 (7%) on industry stakeholders comprising AI vendors, researchers and regulators. 28 29 Detailed study descriptions are provided in the online supplemental appendix and summary results are listed in table 1.…”

“…Ensuring access and equity. [24][25][26] AI applications shown to be effective must be equitably accessible to low income, remote or other disadvantaged populations, and not be concentrated in already wellserved populations with well-structured digital and data infrastructures.…”

Stakeholder perceptions of the safety and assurance of artificial intelligence in healthcare

“…While patients generally had positive attitudes and trust in the technical aspects of AI, they expressed concern about the potential impact on the relationship with their clinicians. A literature review suggested that unfortunately patient attitudes towards AI are not usually included in clinical trials of healthcare AI applications (Scott et al, 2021), and some studies found that fear of dehumanisation of the relationship between patients and their clinicians was a significant concern (Esmaeilzadeh, 2020;Sisk et al, 2020). Such concerns echo findings from research about patient perceptions on their care, e.g., in the management of deterioration.…”

Perceptions and attitudes of Children and Young People to Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

“…Highquality reviews of AI in healthcare have addressed its use, value, and trustworthiness 3−6 . In children's healthcare, parents ask for openness during AI development, and ask that technical experts consider shared decision making, the human element of care and social justice as part of the development process 7 . However, whilst views of Children and Young People (CYP) can shape healthcare provision 8−11 , few policy recommendations reflect their views and beliefs 12−14 .…”