Patient perceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in healthcare reveal a nuanced outlook. Despite acknowledging its readiness for diverse healthcare applications, concerns persist regarding information accuracy and sourcing. The survey, conducted by Wolters Kluwer Health among 1,000 adult healthcare consumers, highlights the pivotal role of transparency, reliance on vetted medical content, and collaboration with reputable health IT entities in mitigating patient apprehensions and building trust in GenAI.
The integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in healthcare represents a paradigm shift with immense potential. However, patient perspectives, as outlined in a survey by Wolters Kluwer Health, underscore the delicate balance between optimism and concern. While acknowledging GenAI’s preparedness for various healthcare facets, patients harbor reservations regarding the accuracy, reliability, and origins of medical information powering these AI systems. This introduction sets the stage for understanding patient perspectives, emphasizing the criticality of addressing concerns to foster acceptance and trust in GenAI within the evolving healthcare landscape.
The survey findings reveal a nuanced perspective among patients. While 40% acknowledge GenAI’s readiness for healthcare applications, a majority harbor substantial reservations about the reliability and origins of medical information powering these AI systems. Greg Samios, President and CEO of Clinical Effectiveness at Wolters Kluwer Health, emphasized the imperative need for transparency as GenAI becomes an integral part of healthcare. Samios highlighted the necessity for responsible testing and emphasized the utilization of meticulously vetted content developed by medical experts to foster acceptance of this evolving technology within clinical settings.
Respondents indicated an inevitability in GenAI’s role in healthcare, envisioning its potential in various domains. Over half (54%) believe GenAI is prepared to support routine screenings and examinations, while substantial percentages also see its relevance in cancer screening (45%), disease diagnosis (43%), and pain management (40%). However, fewer respondents perceive GenAI as ready for aiding treatment decisions (36%), mental health support (31%), or surgical procedures (25%).
Despite recognizing the prospective integration of GenAI, patients harbor persistent concerns, primarily rooted in trust issues. An overwhelming 80% expressed apprehension upon learning that GenAI is involved in their healthcare, with nearly half (49%) fearing the potential generation of false medical information. Concerns are amplified by the lack of clarity regarding the origins (86%) and validation methods (82%) of the information utilized to train GenAI, particularly concerning the utilization of unfiltered or unvetted internet searches.
To enhance consumer confidence in GenAI, respondents outlined key factors. A resounding 86% emphasized the importance of knowing that GenAI’s training data originates from reliable medical sources, while 81% favored tools developed by reputable or experienced health IT companies. Notably, the level of concern among respondents significantly decreased to three in five when assured about the involvement of a reputable health IT company in GenAI development.
Amidst prevalent concerns (44%) and nervousness (27%) about GenAI’s usage in healthcare, respondents maintain a cautious optimism. Approximately one-fifth expressed excitement, and a third showcased curiosity regarding GenAI’s potential in healthcare. Many respondents acknowledged the inevitability of GenAI integration, with about a fifth predicting its incorporation into healthcare interactions within two years and 34% expecting it within the next three to five years. Only a small fraction (5%) expressed skepticism regarding GenAI’s eventual adoption in healthcare.
The survey underscores the role of healthcare organizations and health IT vendors in augmenting patient acceptance of GenAI. Ensuring the accuracy and credibility of GenAI training data, alongside collaboration with reputable health IT vendors, emerged as crucial factors. Wolters Kluwer Health emphasized the significance of maintaining fidelity in GenAI tools by leveraging medically accurate data and partnering with established health IT vendors.
Patient perceptions of GenAI in healthcare necessitate a concerted effort to bridge the trust gap. The survey findings from Wolters Kluwer Health highlight a dual sentiment—recognition of GenAI’s potential intertwined with persistent concerns about trust and accuracy. To navigate this terrain successfully, transparency in GenAI’s utilization, reliance on vetted medical content, and collaborations with reputable health IT entities emerge as pivotal factors. Building trust requires meticulous attention to data accuracy and sourcing while leveraging established partnerships. The evolving landscape of AI-driven healthcare solutions demands a strategic alignment between patient expectations and industry endeavors to ensure responsible and reliable integration of GenAI for better healthcare outcomes.