Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb;30(2):1033-1040.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06486-0. Epub 2019 Nov 8.

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

Yfke P Ongena  1 , Marieke Haan  2 , Derya Yakar  3 , Thomas C Kwee  3
Affiliations

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

Yfke P Ongena et al. Eur Radiol. 2020 Feb.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Patients; Radiology; Surveys and questionnaires.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Layout of matrix with agree-disagree statements
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Hosny A, Parmar C, Quackenbush J, Schwartz LH, Aerts HJWL. Artificial intelligence in radiology. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018;18:500–510. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Thrall JH, Li X, Li Q et al (2018) Artificial intelligence and machine learning in radiology: opportunities, challenges, pitfalls, and criteria for success. J Am Coll Radiol 15(3 Pt B):504–508 - PubMed
    1. Haan M, Ongena YP, Kwee TC, Yakar D, Hommes S (2019) A qualitative study to understand patient perspective on the use of artificial intelligence in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol. 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.12.043 - PubMed
    1. Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;10:1223–1238. - PubMed
    1. Featherall J, Lapin B, Chaitoff A, Havele SA, Thompson N, Katzan I. Characterization of patient interest in provider-based consumer health information technology: survey study. J Med Internet Res. 2018;4:e128. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources