Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Barriers and Facilitators to Trustworthy and Ethical AI-enabled Medical Care From Patient’s and Healthcare Provider’s Perspectives: A Literature Review

Maryam Mooghali, Austin M. Stroud, Dong Whi Yoo, Barbara A Barry, Alyssa A. Grimshaw, View ORCID ProfileJoseph S. Ross, Xuan Zhu, Jennifer E. Miller
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.02.23296447
Maryam Mooghali
1Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
MD, MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: maryam.mooghali{at}yale.edu
Austin M. Stroud
3Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dong Whi Yoo
4School of Information, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA
PhD, MS, MFA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barbara A Barry
5Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
6Division of Health Care Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alyssa A. Grimshaw
7Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT
MSLIS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph S. Ross
1Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
8Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health; and Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Health System, New Haven, CT, USA
MD, MHS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Joseph S. Ross
Xuan Zhu
5Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
PhD, MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer E. Miller
1Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly used for prevention, diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Despite the potential for AI/ML to improve care, ethical concerns and mistrust in AI-enabled health care exist among the public and medical community. To inform practice guidelines and regulatory policies that facilitate ethical and trustworthy use of AI in medicine, we conducted a literature review to identify key ethical and trust barriers and facilitators from patients’ and healthcare providers’ perspectives when using AI in cardiovascular care.

Methods In this rapid literature review, we searched six bibliographic databases to identify publications discussing transparency, trust, or ethical concerns (outcomes of interest) associated with AI/ML-based medical devices (interventions of interest) in the context of cardiovascular care from patients’, caregivers’, or healthcare providers’ perspectives. The search was completed on May 24, 2022 and was not limited by date or study design.

Results After reviewing 7,925 papers from six databases and 3,603 papers identified through citation chasing, 145 articles were included. Key ethical concerns included privacy, security, or confidentiality issues; risk of healthcare inequity or disparity; risk of patient harm; accountability and responsibility concerns; problematic informed consent and potential loss of patient autonomy; and issues related to data ownership. Major trust barriers included data privacy and security concerns, potential risk of patient harm, perceived lack of transparency about AI-enabled medical devices, concerns about AI replacing human aspects of care, concerns about prioritizing profits over patients’ interests, and lack of robust evidence related to the accuracy and limitations of AI-based medical devices. Ethical and trust facilitators included ensuring data privacy and data validation, conducting clinical trials in diverse cohorts, providing appropriate training and resources to patients and healthcare providers and improving their engagement in different phases of AI implementation, and establishing further regulatory oversights.

Conclusion This review revealed key ethical concerns and barriers and facilitators of trust in AI-enabled medical devices from patients’ and healthcare providers’ perspectives. Mitigation strategies, including enhancing regulatory oversight on the use of patient data and promoting AI safety and transparency are needed for effective implementation of AI in cardiovascular care.

Competing Interest Statement

Dr. Mooghali currently receives research support through Yale University from Arnold Ventures outside of the submitted work. Mr. Stroud has no competing interests. Dr. Yoo has no competing interests. Dr. Barry currently receives research support through the Mayo Clinic Department of Cardiology from Anumana, Inc. Ms. Grimshaw has no competing interests. Dr Ross reported receiving grants from the US Food and Drug Administration; Johnson and Johnson; Medical Device Innovation Consortium; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Arnold Ventures outside the submitted work. Dr. Ross was also an expert witness at the request of relator attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen Inc. that was settled in September 2022. Dr. Zhu offers scientific input to research studies through a contracted services agreement between Mayo Clinic and Exact Sciences Corporation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Miller reported receiving grants from the US Food & Drug Administration during the conduct of the study and receiving grants from Arnold Ventures, and Scientific American and serving on the board of the nonprofit Bioethics International, and as bioethics advisor at GalateoBio outside the submitted work.

Funding Statement

This publication was supported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award [Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation grant to Yale University, U01FD005938] totaling $712,431 with 100 percent funded by FDA/HHS. The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by FDA/HHS, or the U.S. Government.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

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

Relevant data are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted October 02, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Barriers and Facilitators to Trustworthy and Ethical AI-enabled Medical Care From Patient’s and Healthcare Provider’s Perspectives: A Literature Review
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Barriers and Facilitators to Trustworthy and Ethical AI-enabled Medical Care From Patient’s and Healthcare Provider’s Perspectives: A Literature Review
Maryam Mooghali, Austin M. Stroud, Dong Whi Yoo, Barbara A Barry, Alyssa A. Grimshaw, Joseph S. Ross, Xuan Zhu, Jennifer E. Miller
medRxiv 2023.10.02.23296447; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.02.23296447
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Barriers and Facilitators to Trustworthy and Ethical AI-enabled Medical Care From Patient’s and Healthcare Provider’s Perspectives: A Literature Review
Maryam Mooghali, Austin M. Stroud, Dong Whi Yoo, Barbara A Barry, Alyssa A. Grimshaw, Joseph S. Ross, Xuan Zhu, Jennifer E. Miller
medRxiv 2023.10.02.23296447; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.02.23296447

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Medical Ethics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)