Riedl René, Hogeterp Svea A, Reuter Martin
Digital Business Institute, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Steyr, Austria.
Institute of Business Informatics - Information Engineering, University of Linz, Linz, Austria.
Front Psychol. 2024 Aug 12;15:1422177. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1422177. eCollection 2024.
Today the doctor-patient relationship typically takes place in a face-to-face setting. However, with the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, two further interaction scenarios are possible: an AI system supports the doctor's decision regarding diagnosis and/or treatment while interacting with the patient, or an AI system could even substitute the doctor and hence a patient interacts with a chatbot (i.e., a machine) alone. Against this background, we report on an online experiment in which we analyzed data from = 1,183 people. The data was collected in German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland). The participants were asked to imagine they had been suffering from medical conditions of unknown origin for some time and that they were therefore visiting a health center to seek advice from a doctor. We developed descriptions of patient-doctor interactions (referred to as vignettes), thereby manipulating the patient's interaction partner: (i) human doctor, (ii) human doctor with an AI system, and (iii) an AI system only (i.e., chatbot). Furthermore, we manipulated medical discipline: (i) cardiology, (ii) orthopedics, (iii) dermatology, and (iv) psychiatry. Based on this 3 × 4 experimental within-subjects design, our results indicate that people prefer a human doctor, followed by a human doctor with an AI system, and an AI system alone came in last place. Specifically, based on these 12 hypothetical interaction situations, we found a significant main effect of a patient's interaction partner on trust, distrust, perceived privacy invasion, information disclosure, treatment adherence, and satisfaction. Moreover, perceptions of trust, distrust, and privacy invasion predicted information disclosure, treatment adherence, and satisfaction as a function of interaction partner and medical discipline. We found that the situation in psychiatry is different from the other three disciplines. Specifically, the six outcome variables differed strongly between psychiatry and the three other disciplines in the "human doctor with an AI system" condition, while this effect was not that strong in the other conditions (human doctor, chatbot). These findings have important implications for the use of AI in medical care and in the interaction between patients and their doctors.
如今,医患关系通常发生在面对面的场景中。然而,随着人工智能(AI)系统的出现,还可能出现另外两种互动场景:一种是人工智能系统在与患者互动时支持医生做出诊断和/或治疗决策;另一种是人工智能系统甚至可以替代医生,从而患者单独与聊天机器人(即机器)进行互动。在此背景下,我们报告了一项在线实验,在该实验中我们分析了来自1183人的数据。这些数据是在德语国家(德国、奥地利、瑞士)收集的。参与者被要求想象他们一段时间以来一直患有不明病因的疾病,因此他们前往健康中心向医生寻求建议。我们编写了医患互动的描述(称为 vignettes),从而操纵患者的互动伙伴:(i)人类医生,(ii)配备人工智能系统的人类医生,以及(iii)仅人工智能系统(即聊天机器人)。此外,我们还操纵了医学学科:(i)心脏病学,(ii)骨科,(iii)皮肤科,以及(iv)精神病学。基于这种3×4的被试内实验设计,我们的结果表明,人们更喜欢人类医生,其次是配备人工智能系统的人类医生,而仅人工智能系统排在最后。具体而言,基于这12种假设的互动情况,我们发现患者的互动伙伴对信任、不信任、感知到的隐私侵犯、信息披露、治疗依从性和满意度有显著的主效应。此外,信任、不信任和隐私侵犯的感知作为互动伙伴和医学学科的函数,预测了信息披露、治疗依从性和满意度。我们发现精神病学的情况与其他三个学科不同。具体而言,在“配备人工智能系统的人类医生”条件下,精神病学与其他三个学科之间的六个结果变量差异很大,而在其他条件(人类医生、聊天机器人)下这种影响并不那么强烈。这些发现对人工智能在医疗保健中的应用以及患者与医生之间的互动具有重要意义。