Cargando…

Patients’ views on the implementation of artificial intelligence in radiology: development and validation of a standardized questionnaire

OBJECTIVES: The patients’ view on the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology is still mainly unexplored territory. The aim of this article is to develop and validate a standardized patient questionnaire on the implementation of AI in radiology. METHODS: Six domains derived from...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ongena, Yfke P., Haan, Marieke, Yakar, Derya, Kwee, Thomas C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6957541/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31705254
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06486-0
_version_ 1783487326118215680
author Ongena, Yfke P.
Haan, Marieke
Yakar, Derya
Kwee, Thomas C.
author_facet Ongena, Yfke P.
Haan, Marieke
Yakar, Derya
Kwee, Thomas C.
author_sort Ongena, Yfke P.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The patients’ view on the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology is still mainly unexplored territory. The aim of this article is to develop and validate a standardized patient questionnaire on the implementation of AI in radiology. METHODS: Six domains derived from a previous qualitative study were used to develop a questionnaire, and cognitive interviews were used as pretest method. One hundred fifty-five patients scheduled for CT, MRI, and/or conventional radiography filled out the questionnaire. To find underlying latent variables, we used exploratory factor analysis with principal axis factoring and oblique promax rotation. Internal consistency of the factors was measured with Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. RESULTS: The exploratory factor analysis revealed five factors on AI in radiology: (1) distrust and accountability (overall, patients were moderately negative on this subject), (2) procedural knowledge (patients generally indicated the need for their active engagement), (3) personal interaction (overall, patients preferred personal interaction), (4) efficiency (overall, patients were ambiguous on this subject), and (5) being informed (overall, scores on these items were not outspoken within this factor). Internal consistency was good for three factors (1, 2, and 3), and acceptable for two (4 and 5). CONCLUSIONS: This study yielded a viable questionnaire to measure acceptance among patients of the implementation of AI in radiology. Additional data collection with confirmatory factor analysis may provide further refinement of the scale. KEY POINTS: • Although AI systems are increasingly developed, not much is known about patients’ views on AI in radiology. • Since it is important that newly developed questionnaires are adequately tested and validated, we did so for a questionnaire measuring patients’ views on AI in radiology, revealing five factors. • Successful implementation of AI in radiology requires assessment of social factors such as subjective norms towards the technology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6957541
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69575412020-01-27 Patients’ views on the implementation of artificial intelligence in radiology: development and validation of a standardized questionnaire Ongena, Yfke P. Haan, Marieke Yakar, Derya Kwee, Thomas C. Eur Radiol Radiological Education OBJECTIVES: The patients’ view on the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology is still mainly unexplored territory. The aim of this article is to develop and validate a standardized patient questionnaire on the implementation of AI in radiology. METHODS: Six domains derived from a previous qualitative study were used to develop a questionnaire, and cognitive interviews were used as pretest method. One hundred fifty-five patients scheduled for CT, MRI, and/or conventional radiography filled out the questionnaire. To find underlying latent variables, we used exploratory factor analysis with principal axis factoring and oblique promax rotation. Internal consistency of the factors was measured with Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. RESULTS: The exploratory factor analysis revealed five factors on AI in radiology: (1) distrust and accountability (overall, patients were moderately negative on this subject), (2) procedural knowledge (patients generally indicated the need for their active engagement), (3) personal interaction (overall, patients preferred personal interaction), (4) efficiency (overall, patients were ambiguous on this subject), and (5) being informed (overall, scores on these items were not outspoken within this factor). Internal consistency was good for three factors (1, 2, and 3), and acceptable for two (4 and 5). CONCLUSIONS: This study yielded a viable questionnaire to measure acceptance among patients of the implementation of AI in radiology. Additional data collection with confirmatory factor analysis may provide further refinement of the scale. KEY POINTS: • Although AI systems are increasingly developed, not much is known about patients’ views on AI in radiology. • Since it is important that newly developed questionnaires are adequately tested and validated, we did so for a questionnaire measuring patients’ views on AI in radiology, revealing five factors. • Successful implementation of AI in radiology requires assessment of social factors such as subjective norms towards the technology. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019-11-08 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC6957541/ /pubmed/31705254 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06486-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Radiological Education
Ongena, Yfke P.
Haan, Marieke
Yakar, Derya
Kwee, Thomas C.
Patients’ views on the implementation of artificial intelligence in radiology: development and validation of a standardized questionnaire
title Patients’ views on the implementation of artificial intelligence in radiology: development and validation of a standardized questionnaire
title_full Patients’ views on the implementation of artificial intelligence in radiology: development and validation of a standardized questionnaire
title_fullStr Patients’ views on the implementation of artificial intelligence in radiology: development and validation of a standardized questionnaire
title_full_unstemmed Patients’ views on the implementation of artificial intelligence in radiology: development and validation of a standardized questionnaire
title_short Patients’ views on the implementation of artificial intelligence in radiology: development and validation of a standardized questionnaire
title_sort patients’ views on the implementation of artificial intelligence in radiology: development and validation of a standardized questionnaire
topic Radiological Education
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6957541/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31705254
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06486-0
work_keys_str_mv AT ongenayfkep patientsviewsontheimplementationofartificialintelligenceinradiologydevelopmentandvalidationofastandardizedquestionnaire
AT haanmarieke patientsviewsontheimplementationofartificialintelligenceinradiologydevelopmentandvalidationofastandardizedquestionnaire
AT yakarderya patientsviewsontheimplementationofartificialintelligenceinradiologydevelopmentandvalidationofastandardizedquestionnaire
AT kweethomasc patientsviewsontheimplementationofartificialintelligenceinradiologydevelopmentandvalidationofastandardizedquestionnaire