American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) Broadband Internet Access Is a Social Determinant of Health!, an article from American Journal of Public Health, Vol 110 Issue 8

Use of artificial intelligence in healthcare, such as machine learning-based predictive algorithms, holds promise for advancing outcomes, but few systems are used in routine clinical practice. Trust has been cited as an important challenge to meaningful use of artificial intelligence in clinical practice. Artificial intelligence systems often involve automating cognitively challenging tasks. Therefore, previous literature on trust in automation may hold important lessons for artificial intelligence applications in healthcare. In this perspective, we argue that informatics should take lessons from literature on trust in automation such that the goal should be to foster appropriate trust in artificial intelligence based on the purpose of the tool, its process for making recommendations, and its performance in the given context. We adapt a conceptual model to support this argument and present recommendations for future work.

Qualitative research, the analysis of nonquantitative and nonquantifiable data through methods such as interviews and observation, is integral to the field of biomedical and health informatics. To demonstrate the integrity and quality of their qualitative research, authors should report important elements of their work. This perspective article offers guidance about reporting components of the research, including theory, the research question, sampling, data collection methods, data analysis, results, and discussion. Addressing these points in the paper assists peer reviewers and readers in assessing the rigor of the work and its contribution to the literature. Clearer and more detailed reporting will ensure that qualitative research will continue to be published in informatics, helping researchers disseminate their understanding of people, organizations, context, and sociotechnical relationships as they relate to biomedical and health data.

Background: The application of artificial intelligence (AI) to health and health care is rapidly increasing. Several studies have assessed the attitudes of health professionals, but far fewer studies have explored the perspectives of patients or the general public. Studies investigating patient perspectives have focused on somatic issues, including those related to radiology, perinatal health, and general applications. Patient feedback has been elicited in the development of specific mental health care solutions, but broader perspectives toward AI for mental health care have been underexplored. Objective: This study aims to understand public perceptions regarding potential benefits of AI, concerns about AI, comfort with AI accomplishing various tasks, and values related to AI, all pertaining to mental health care. Methods: We conducted a 1-time cross-sectional survey with a nationally representative sample of 500 US-based adults. Participants provided structured responses on their perceived benefits, concerns, comfort, and values regarding AI for mental health care. They could also add free-text responses to elaborate on their concerns and values. Results: A plurality of participants (245/497, 49.3%) believed AI may be beneficial for mental health care, but this perspective differed based on sociodemographic variables (all P<.05). Specifically, Black participants (odds ratio [OR] 1.76, 95% CI 1.03-3.05) and those with lower health literacy (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.29-3.78) perceived AI to be more beneficial, and women (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-0.99) perceived AI to be less beneficial. Participants endorsed concerns about accuracy, possible unintended consequences such as misdiagnosis, the confidentiality of their information, and the loss of connection with their health professional when AI is used for mental health care. A majority of participants (80.4%, 402/500) valued being able to understand individual factors driving their risk, confidentiality, and autonomy as it pertained to the use of AI for their mental health. When asked who was responsible for the misdiagnosis of mental health conditions using AI, 81.6% (408/500) of participants found the health professional to be responsible. Qualitative results revealed similar concerns related to the accuracy of AI and how its use may impact the confidentiality of patients’ information. Conclusions: Future work involving the use of AI for mental health care should investigate strategies for conveying the level of AI’s accuracy, factors that drive patients’ mental health risks, and how data are used confidentially so that patients can determine with their health professionals when AI may be beneficial. It will also be important in a mental health care context to ensure the patient–health professional relationship is preserved when AI is used.

Objective: Predictive analytics are potentially powerful tools, but to improve healthcare delivery, they must be carefully integrated into healthcare organizations. Our objective was to identify facilitators, challenges, and recommendations for implementing a novel predictive algorithm which aims to prospectively identify patients with high preventable utilization to proactively involve them in preventative interventions.Materials and Methods: In preparation for implementing the predictive algorithm in 3 organizations, we interviewed 3 stakeholder groups: health systems operations (eg, chief medical officers, department chairs), informatics personnel, and potential end users (eg, physicians, nurses, social workers). We applied thematic analysis to derive key themes and categorize them into the dimensions of Sittig and Singh’s original sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems. Recruiting and analysis were conducted iteratively until thematic saturation was achieved.Results: Forty-nine interviews were conducted in 3 healthcare organizations. Technical components of the implementation (hardware and software) raised fewer concerns than alignment with sociotechnical factors. Stakeholders wanted decision support based on the algorithm to be clear and actionable and incorporated into current workflows. However, how to make this disease-independent classification tool actionable was perceived as a challenge, and appropriate patient interventions informed by the algorithm appeared likely to require substantial external and institutional resources. Stakeholders also described the criticality of trust, credibility, and interpretability of the predictive algorithm.Conclusions: Although predictive analytics can classify patients with high accuracy, they cannot advance healthcare processes and outcomes without careful implementation that takes into account the sociotechnical system. Key stakeholders have strong perceptions about facilitators and challenges to shape successful implementation.