An Assessment of How Clinicians and Staff Members Use a Diabetes Artificial Intelligence Prediction Tool: Mixed Methods Study (Preprint)

Abstract

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Nearly one-third of patients with diabetes are poorly controlled (hemoglobin A&lt;sub&gt;1c&lt;/sub&gt;≥9%). Identifying at-risk individuals and providing them with effective treatment is an important strategy for preventing poor control. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> This study aims to assess how clinicians and staff members would use a clinical decision support tool based on artificial intelligence (AI) and identify factors that affect adoption. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> This was a mixed methods study that combined semistructured interviews and surveys to assess the perceived usefulness and ease of use, intent to use, and factors affecting tool adoption. We recruited clinicians and staff members from practices that manage diabetes. During the interviews, participants reviewed a sample electronic health record alert and were informed that the tool uses AI to identify those at high risk for poor control. Participants discussed how they would use the tool, whether it would contribute to care, and the factors affecting its implementation. In a survey, participants reported their demographics; rank-ordered factors influencing the adoption of the tool; and reported their perception of the tool’s usefulness as well as their intent to use, ease of use, and organizational support for use. Qualitative data were analyzed using a thematic content analysis approach. We used descriptive statistics to report demographics and analyze the findings of the survey. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> In total, 22 individuals participated in the study. Two-thirds (14/22, 63%) of respondents were physicians. Overall, 36% (8/22) of respondents worked in academic health centers, whereas 27% (6/22) of respondents worked in federally qualified health centers. The interviews identified several themes: this tool has the potential to be useful because it provides information that is not currently available and can make care more efficient and effective; clinicians and staff members were concerned about how the tool affects patient-oriented outcomes and clinical workflows; adoption of the tool is dependent on its validation, transparency, actionability, and design and could be increased with changes to the interface and usability; and implementation would require buy-in and need to be tailored to the demands and resources of clinics and communities. Survey findings supported these themes, as 77% (17/22) of participants somewhat, moderately, or strongly agreed that they would use the tool, whereas these figures were 82% (18/22) for usefulness, 82% (18/22) for ease of use, and 68% (15/22) for clinic support. The 2 highest ranked factors affecting adoption were whether the tool improves health and the accuracy of the tool. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> Most participants found the tool to be easy to use and useful, although they had concerns about alert fatigue, bias, and transparency. These data will be used to enhance the design of an AI tool. </sec>

Ähnliche Arbeiten