Facilitating public involvement in research about healthcare AI: A scoping review of empirical methods

• Published in: International journal of medical informatics (Shannon, Ireland) Vol. 186; p. 105417
• Main Authors: Frost, Emma Kellie, Bosward, Rebecca, Aquino, Yves Saint James, Braunack-Mayer, Annette, Carter, Stacy M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Ireland Elsevier B.V 01.06.2024
• Subjects: Artificial Intelligence; Delivery of Health Care; Health Facilities; Healthcare; Humans; Public and patient involvement; Scoping review; Scoping review; Healthcare; Artificial intelligence; Public and patient involvement
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105417
• ISSN: 1386-5056; 1872-8243

•We analysed the methods and reporting of studies exploring patient views on healthcare AI.•Most studies used vignettes or background information to help participants engage with complex subject matter.•Most studies used participants views to make recommendations about how AI should be implemented.•Many studies still reported participants’ lack of prior knowledge about AI as a limitation. With the recent increase in research into public views on healthcare artificial intelligence (HCAI), the objective of this review is to examine the methods of empirical studies on public views on HCAI. We map how studies provided participants with information about HCAI, and we examine the extent to which studies framed publics as active contributors to HCAI governance. We searched 5 academic databases and Google Advanced for empirical studies investigating public views on HCAI. We extracted information including study aims, research instruments, and recommendations. Sixty-two studies were included. Most were quantitative (N = 42). Most (N = 47) reported providing participants with background information about HCAI. Despite this, studies often reported participants’ lack of prior knowledge about HCAI as a limitation. Over three quarters (N = 48) of the studies made recommendations that envisaged public views being used to guide governance of AI. Provision of background information is an important component of facilitating research with publics on HCAI. The high proportion of studies reporting participants’ lack of knowledge about HCAI as a limitation reflects the need for more guidance on how information should be presented. A minority of studies adopted technocratic positions that construed publics as passive beneficiaries of AI, rather than as active stakeholders in HCAI design and implementation. This review draws attention to how public roles in HCAI governance are constructed in empirical studies. To facilitate active participation, we recommend that research with publics on HCAI consider methodological designs that expose participants to diverse information sources.