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
Review
. 2023 Jun 10;6(1):111.
doi: 10.1038/s41746-023-00852-5.

An integrative review on the acceptance of artificial intelligence among healthcare professionals in hospitals

Sophie Isabelle Lambert #  1   2 , Murielle Madi #  3 , Saša Sopka  4   5 , Andrea Lenes  4 , Hendrik Stange  6 , Claus-Peter Buszello  6 , Astrid Stephan  7   8
Affiliations
Review

An integrative review on the acceptance of artificial intelligence among healthcare professionals in hospitals

Sophie Isabelle Lambert et al. NPJ Digit Med. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) in the domain of healthcare is increasing in prominence. Acceptance is an indispensable prerequisite for the widespread implementation of AI. The aim of this integrative review is to explore barriers and facilitators influencing healthcare professionals' acceptance of AI in the hospital setting. Forty-two articles met the inclusion criteria for this review. Pertinent elements to the study such as the type of AI, factors influencing acceptance, and the participants' profession were extracted from the included studies, and the studies were appraised for their quality. The data extraction and results were presented according to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model. The included studies revealed a variety of facilitating and hindering factors for AI acceptance in the hospital setting. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) were the AI form included in most studies (n = 21). Heterogeneous results with regard to the perceptions of the effects of AI on error occurrence, alert sensitivity and timely resources were reported. In contrast, fear of a loss of (professional) autonomy and difficulties in integrating AI into clinical workflows were unanimously reported to be hindering factors. On the other hand, training for the use of AI facilitated acceptance. Heterogeneous results may be explained by differences in the application and functioning of the different AI systems as well as inter-professional and interdisciplinary disparities. To conclude, in order to facilitate acceptance of AI among healthcare professionals it is advisable to integrate end-users in the early stages of AI development as well as to offer needs-adjusted training for the use of AI in healthcare and providing adequate infrastructure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Maskara R, Bhootra V, Thakkar D, Nishkalank N. A study on the perception of medical professionals towards artificial intelligence. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. Dev. 2017;4:34–39.
    1. Oh S, et al. Physician confidence in artificial intelligence: an online mobile survey. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019;21:e12422. doi: 10.2196/12422. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Choudhury A, Asan O, Medow JE. Clinicians’ perceptions of an artificial intelligence–based blood utilization calculator: qualitative exploratory study. JMIR Hum. Factors. 2022;9:1–9. doi: 10.2196/38411. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pallay, C. Vom Turing-Test zum General Problem Solver. Die Pionierjahre der künstlichen Intelligenz. in Philosophisches Handbuch Künstliche Intelligenz (ed. Mainzer, K.) 1–20 (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2020). 10.1007/978-3-658-23715-8_3-1.
    1. Liyanage H, et al. Artificial intelligence in primary health care: perceptions, issues, and challenges. Yearb. Med. Inform. 2019;28:41–46. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1677901. - DOI - PMC - PubMed