“Many roads lead to Rome and the Artificial Intelligence only shows me one road”: an interview study on physician attitudes regarding the implementation of computerised clinical decision support systems

BMC Medical Ethics 23 (1):1-14 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Research regarding the drivers of acceptance of clinical decision support systems by physicians is still rather limited. The literature that does exist, however, tends to focus on problems regarding the user-friendliness of CDSS. We have performed a thematic analysis of 24 interviews with physicians concerning specific clinical case vignettes, in order to explore their underlying opinions and attitudes regarding the introduction of CDSS in clinical practice, to allow a more in-depth analysis of factors underlying acceptance of CDSS. We identified three general themes from the results. First, ‘the perceived role of the AI’, including items referring to the tasks that may properly be assigned to the CDSS according to the respondents. Second, ‘the perceived role of the physician’, referring to the aspects of clinical practice that were seen as being fundamentally ‘human’ or non-automatable. Third, ‘concerns regarding AI’, including items referring to more general issues that were raised by the respondents regarding the introduction of CDSS in general and/or in clinical medicine in particular. Apart from the overall concerns expressed by the respondents regarding user-friendliness, we will explain how our results indicate that our respondents were primarily occupied by distinguishing between parts of their job that should be automated and aspects that should be kept in human hands. We refer to this distinction as ‘the division of clinical labor.’ This division is not based on knowledge regarding AI or medicine, but rather on which parts of a physician’s job were seen by the respondents as being central to who they are as physicians and as human beings. Often the respondents’ view that certain core parts of their job ought to be shielded from automation was closely linked to claims concerning the uniqueness of medicine as a domain. Finally, although almost all respondents claimed that they highly value their final responsibility, a closer investigation of this concept suggests that their view of ‘final responsibility’ was not that demanding after all.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,347

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Artificial Intelligence as Solution in Facing the Age of Digital Disruption 4.0.David David - 2020 - JUDIMAS (Jurnal Inovasi Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat) 1 (1):107-116.
Ai: Its Nature and Future.Margaret A. Boden - 2016 - Oxford University Press UK.
Intelligence Reinvented.Nello Cristianini - 2016 - New Scientist 232:37-41.
Intelligence, Artificial and Otherwise.Paul Dumouchel - 2019 - Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy 24 (2):241-258.
Embodied artificial intelligence once again.Anna Sarosiek - 2017 - Philosophical Problems in Science 63:231-240.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-05-07

Downloads
43 (#372,509)

6 months
34 (#102,944)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sigrid Sterckx
University of Ghent