Cargando…
Inclusion of Clinicians in the Development and Evaluation of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Tools: A Systematic Literature Review
The application of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare domains has received much attention in recent years, yet significant questions remain about how these new tools integrate into frontline user workflow, and how their design will impact implementation. Lack of acc...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9022040/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35465567 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.830345 |
_version_ | 1784689990485147648 |
---|---|
author | Tulk Jesso, Stephanie Kelliher, Aisling Sanghavi, Harsh Martin, Thomas Henrickson Parker, Sarah |
author_facet | Tulk Jesso, Stephanie Kelliher, Aisling Sanghavi, Harsh Martin, Thomas Henrickson Parker, Sarah |
author_sort | Tulk Jesso, Stephanie |
collection | PubMed |
description | The application of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare domains has received much attention in recent years, yet significant questions remain about how these new tools integrate into frontline user workflow, and how their design will impact implementation. Lack of acceptance among clinicians is a major barrier to the translation of healthcare innovations into clinical practice. In this systematic review, we examine when and how clinicians are consulted about their needs and desires for clinical AI tools. Forty-five articles met criteria for inclusion, of which 24 were considered design studies. The design studies used a variety of methods to solicit and gather user feedback, with interviews, surveys, and user evaluations. Our findings show that tool designers consult clinicians at various but inconsistent points during the design process, and most typically at later stages in the design cycle (82%, 19/24 design studies). We also observed a smaller amount of studies adopting a human-centered approach and where clinician input was solicited throughout the design process (22%, 5/24). A third (15/45) of all studies reported on clinician trust in clinical AI algorithms and tools. The surveyed articles did not universally report validation against the “gold standard” of clinical expertise or provide detailed descriptions of the algorithms or computational methods used in their work. To realize the full potential of AI tools within healthcare settings, our review suggests there are opportunities to more thoroughly integrate frontline users’ needs and feedback in the design process. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9022040 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-90220402022-04-22 Inclusion of Clinicians in the Development and Evaluation of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Tools: A Systematic Literature Review Tulk Jesso, Stephanie Kelliher, Aisling Sanghavi, Harsh Martin, Thomas Henrickson Parker, Sarah Front Psychol Psychology The application of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare domains has received much attention in recent years, yet significant questions remain about how these new tools integrate into frontline user workflow, and how their design will impact implementation. Lack of acceptance among clinicians is a major barrier to the translation of healthcare innovations into clinical practice. In this systematic review, we examine when and how clinicians are consulted about their needs and desires for clinical AI tools. Forty-five articles met criteria for inclusion, of which 24 were considered design studies. The design studies used a variety of methods to solicit and gather user feedback, with interviews, surveys, and user evaluations. Our findings show that tool designers consult clinicians at various but inconsistent points during the design process, and most typically at later stages in the design cycle (82%, 19/24 design studies). We also observed a smaller amount of studies adopting a human-centered approach and where clinician input was solicited throughout the design process (22%, 5/24). A third (15/45) of all studies reported on clinician trust in clinical AI algorithms and tools. The surveyed articles did not universally report validation against the “gold standard” of clinical expertise or provide detailed descriptions of the algorithms or computational methods used in their work. To realize the full potential of AI tools within healthcare settings, our review suggests there are opportunities to more thoroughly integrate frontline users’ needs and feedback in the design process. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9022040/ /pubmed/35465567 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.830345 Text en Copyright © 2022 Tulk Jesso, Kelliher, Sanghavi, Martin and Henrickson Parker. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Tulk Jesso, Stephanie Kelliher, Aisling Sanghavi, Harsh Martin, Thomas Henrickson Parker, Sarah Inclusion of Clinicians in the Development and Evaluation of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Tools: A Systematic Literature Review |
title | Inclusion of Clinicians in the Development and Evaluation of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Tools: A Systematic Literature Review |
title_full | Inclusion of Clinicians in the Development and Evaluation of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Tools: A Systematic Literature Review |
title_fullStr | Inclusion of Clinicians in the Development and Evaluation of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Tools: A Systematic Literature Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Inclusion of Clinicians in the Development and Evaluation of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Tools: A Systematic Literature Review |
title_short | Inclusion of Clinicians in the Development and Evaluation of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Tools: A Systematic Literature Review |
title_sort | inclusion of clinicians in the development and evaluation of clinical artificial intelligence tools: a systematic literature review |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9022040/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35465567 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.830345 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tulkjessostephanie inclusionofcliniciansinthedevelopmentandevaluationofclinicalartificialintelligencetoolsasystematicliteraturereview AT kelliheraisling inclusionofcliniciansinthedevelopmentandevaluationofclinicalartificialintelligencetoolsasystematicliteraturereview AT sanghaviharsh inclusionofcliniciansinthedevelopmentandevaluationofclinicalartificialintelligencetoolsasystematicliteraturereview AT martinthomas inclusionofcliniciansinthedevelopmentandevaluationofclinicalartificialintelligencetoolsasystematicliteraturereview AT henricksonparkersarah inclusionofcliniciansinthedevelopmentandevaluationofclinicalartificialintelligencetoolsasystematicliteraturereview |