Patients’ views on the implementation of artificial intelligence in radiology: development and validation of a standardized questionnaire

• Published in: European radiology Vol. 30; no. 2; pp. 1033 - 1040
• Main Authors: Ongena, Yfke P., Haan, Marieke, Yakar, Derya, Kwee, Thomas C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.02.2020; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Artificial Intelligence; Attitude to Computers; Attitude to Health; Cognitive ability; Consistency; Data collection; Diagnostic Radiology; Factor analysis; Humans; Imaging; Internal Medicine; Interventional Radiology; Magnetic resonance imaging; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Netherlands; Neuroradiology; Norms; Prospective Studies; Psychometrics; Questionnaires; Radiography; Radiological Education; Radiology; Radiology - methods; Reliability analysis; Reliability aspects; Reproducibility of Results; Social factors; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards; Territory; Ultrasound; Young Adult; Netherlands; Radiology; Surveys and questionnaires; Artificial intelligence; Patients
• ISSN: 0938-7994; 1432-1084; 1432-1084
• DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06486-0

Objectives The patients’ view on the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology is still mainly unexplored territory. The aim of this article is to develop and validate a standardized patient questionnaire on the implementation of AI in radiology. Methods Six domains derived from a previous qualitative study were used to develop a questionnaire, and cognitive interviews were used as pretest method. One hundred fifty-five patients scheduled for CT, MRI, and/or conventional radiography filled out the questionnaire. To find underlying latent variables, we used exploratory factor analysis with principal axis factoring and oblique promax rotation. Internal consistency of the factors was measured with Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. Results The exploratory factor analysis revealed five factors on AI in radiology: (1) distrust and accountability (overall, patients were moderately negative on this subject), (2) procedural knowledge (patients generally indicated the need for their active engagement), (3) personal interaction (overall, patients preferred personal interaction), (4) efficiency (overall, patients were ambiguous on this subject), and (5) being informed (overall, scores on these items were not outspoken within this factor). Internal consistency was good for three factors (1, 2, and 3), and acceptable for two (4 and 5). Conclusions This study yielded a viable questionnaire to measure acceptance among patients of the implementation of AI in radiology. Additional data collection with confirmatory factor analysis may provide further refinement of the scale. Key Points • Although AI systems are increasingly developed, not much is known about patients’ views on AI in radiology. • Since it is important that newly developed questionnaires are adequately tested and validated, we did so for a questionnaire measuring patients’ views on AI in radiology, revealing five factors. • Successful implementation of AI in radiology requires assessment of social factors such as subjective norms towards the technology.