Abstract
Objectives Using qualitative methods, this study aimed to provide a comparative overview of the similarities and differences in perspectives towards AI in healthcare in two different stakeholder groups: healthcare practitioners and patients. It also aimed to investigate whether these perspectives may influence the adoption of AI in healthcare.
Design This study was conducted using semi-structured interviews. Qualitative data from the interviews were analyzed using both deductive and inductive coding, followed by a thematic analysis to identify the prevailing categories for further discussion.
Setting The study was conducted within the Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery of Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Participants A total of 30 participants were recruited using purposive sampling based on predefined inclusion characteristics. This included 18 healthcare professionals (subdivided into 10 surgeons and 8 nurses), and 12 patients. The inclusion criterion for healthcare professionals included surgeons specializing in gastro-intestinal surgery, while the inclusion criterion for patients included those patients who had undergone gastro-intestinal surgery within the past 12 months at the time interviews were conducted. Exclusion criteria involved excluding patients with major health complications.
Outcome measures The study’s central objective was to develop a set of thematic domains that characterize how both groups of stakeholders view the integration of AI in healthcare, encompassing their attitudes towards trust, acceptance, and responsibility. Additionally, it aimed to compare perspectives between healthcare professionals and patients in order to identify areas of convergence and divergence.
Results The analysis comprised a total of 3 main thematic categories, with 10 subcategories. The main thematic categories which emerged were AI Knowledge, Ethics, and Operational and Clinical Implications. While clinicians largely focused on validation, monitoring, administrative labor, and clinical integration, patients emphasized the importance of human attention, of being heard, and of maintaining trust in their clinician.
Conclusion Comparing the attitudes and perspectives of both healthcare practitioners and patients revealed the importance of taking into consideration both groups of stakeholders. While both groups tend to raise concerns about similar themes connected to responsibility, it is clear that this concern involves complex dynamics present in the epistemic environment of healthcare.
Strengths and limitations
This study uniquely compared healthcare practitioners’ and patients’ perspectives within a single qualitative design, using similar interview guides to enable direct cross-stakeholder comparison.
The study examined perceptions of an AI model that had been designed and validated for clinical use, enhancing the practical relevance of the findings.
The relatively small sample size may have limited the diversity of perspectives captured and reduced transferability.
As the study was conducted in a single academic hospital in the Netherlands, the findings may not be generalizable to other healthcare settings or national contexts.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded through the Responsible AI in Healthcare Lab, supported by SAS Institute
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study involves human participants. The Medisch Ethische Toetsings Commissie (Medical Ethical Review Committee) (METC) at Erasmus Medical Center provided ethical approval for the study (Panama ID #13109). The researchers obtained informed written consent from every participant by explaining the purpose behind the study verbally as well as distributing an information letter. It was explained that all participation was entirely voluntary. Participants were informed that their confidentiality would be safeguarded and that interview transcripts would be anonymized prior to analysis to ensure their privacy. All collected data were secured using encrypted digital storage systems accessible only to authorized members of the research team.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
