001     909083
005     20230123110638.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1177/20552076221116772
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a 2128/31667
|2 Handle
024 7 _ |a 35983102
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a WOS:000839064600001
|2 WOS
037 _ _ |a FZJ-2022-03000
041 _ _ |a English
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Fritsch, Sebastian J
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)185651
|b 0
|e Corresponding author
245 _ _ |a Attitudes and perception of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A cross-sectional survey among patients
260 _ _ |a Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.]
|c 2022
|b Sage
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1661169230_2172
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a ObjectiveThe attitudes about the usage of artificial intelligence in healthcare are controversial. Unlike the perception of healthcare professionals, the attitudes of patients and their companions have been of less interest so far. In this study, we aimed to investigate the perception of artificial intelligence in healthcare among this highly relevant group along with the influence of digital affinity and sociodemographic factors.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using a paper-based questionnaire with patients and their companions at a German tertiary referral hospital from December 2019 to February 2020. The questionnaire consisted of three sections examining (a) the respondents’ technical affinity, (b) their perception of different aspects of artificial intelligence in healthcare and (c) sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsFrom a total of 452 participants, more than 90% already read or heard about artificial intelligence, but only 24% reported good or expert knowledge. Asked on their general perception, 53.18% of the respondents rated the use of artificial intelligence in medicine as positive or very positive, but only 4.77% negative or very negative. The respondents denied concerns about artificial intelligence, but strongly agreed that artificial intelligence must be controlled by a physician. Older patients, women, persons with lower education and technical affinity were more cautious on the healthcare-related artificial intelligence usage.ConclusionsGerman patients and their companions are open towards the usage of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Although showing only a mediocre knowledge about artificial intelligence, a majority rated artificial intelligence in healthcare as positive. Particularly, patients insist that a physician supervises the artificial intelligence and keeps ultimate responsibility for diagnosis and therapy.
536 _ _ |a 5112 - Cross-Domain Algorithms, Tools, Methods Labs (ATMLs) and Research Groups (POF4-511)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5112
|c POF4-511
|f POF IV
|x 0
536 _ _ |a SMITH - Medizininformatik-Konsortium - Beitrag Forschungszentrum Jülich (01ZZ1803M)
|0 G:(BMBF)01ZZ1803M
|c 01ZZ1803M
|x 1
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, Journals: juser.fz-juelich.de
700 1 _ |a Blankenheim, Andrea
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Wahl, Alina
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Hetfeld, Petra
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Maassen, Oliver
|0 0000-0002-0437-9295
|b 4
700 1 _ |a Deffge, Saskia
|0 0000-0003-0937-4327
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Kunze, Julian
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 6
700 1 _ |a Rossaint, Rolf
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 7
700 1 _ |a Riedel, Morris
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)132239
|b 8
|u fzj
700 1 _ |a Marx, Gernot
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 9
700 1 _ |a Bickenbach, Johannes
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 10
773 _ _ |a 10.1177/20552076221116772
|g Vol. 8, p. 205520762211167 -
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2819396-9
|p 205520762211167 -
|t Digital health
|v 8
|y 2022
|x 2055-2076
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/909083/files/Fritsch_AI%20perception%20in%20patients.pdf
|y OpenAccess
909 C O |o oai:juser.fz-juelich.de:909083
|p openaire
|p open_access
|p VDB
|p driver
|p dnbdelivery
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 0
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)185651
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 8
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)132239
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Key Technologies
|l Engineering Digital Futures – Supercomputing, Data Management and Information Security for Knowledge and Action
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-510
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-511
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-500
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Enabling Computational- & Data-Intensive Science and Engineering
|9 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5112
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2022
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC 4.0
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNC4
|2 HGFVOC
915 _ _ |a OpenAccess
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0510
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a National-Konsortium
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0430
|2 StatID
|d 2022-11-29
|w ger
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b DIGIT HEALTH : 2021
|d 2022-11-29
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2022-11-29
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2022-11-29
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0501
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ Seal
|d 2021-01-15T16:50:42Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
|d 2021-01-15T16:50:42Z
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ : Blind peer review
|d 2021-01-15T16:50:42Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2022-11-29
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1180
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Social and Behavioral Sciences
|d 2022-11-29
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2022-11-29
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1110
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Clinical Medicine
|d 2022-11-29
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0130
|2 StatID
|b Social Sciences Citation Index
|d 2022-11-29
915 _ _ |a IF < 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9900
|2 StatID
|d 2022-11-29
920 _ _ |l no
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-Juel1)JSC-20090406
|k JSC
|l Jülich Supercomputing Center
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)JSC-20090406
980 1 _ |a FullTexts


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21