What Do People Want from an AI-Assisted Screening App for Sexually Transmitted Infection-Related Anogenital Lesions: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND

One of the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations to achieve its global targets for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is the increased use of digital technologies. Melbourne Sexual Health Centre (MSHC) has developed an AI-assisted screening application (app) called AiSTi for the detection of common STI-related anogenital skin conditions. This study aims to understand the community's preference for using the AiSTi app.

METHODS

We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to understand community preferences regarding the attributes of the AiSTi app for checking anogenital skin lesions. The DCE design included the attributes: data type; AI accuracy; verification of result by clinician; details of result; speed; professional support; and cost. The anonymous DCE survey was distributed to clients attending MSHC and through social media channels in Australia between January and March 2024. Participant preferences on various app attributes were examined using random parameters logit (RPL) and latent class analysis (LCA) models.

RESULTS

The median age of 411 participants was 32 years (interquartile range 26-40 years), with 64% assigned male at birth. Of the participants, 177 (43.1%) identified as same-sex attracted and 137 (33.3%) as heterosexual. In the RPL model, the most influential attribute was the cost of using the app (24.1%), followed by the clinician's verification of results (20.4%), the AI accuracy (19.5%) and the speed of receiving the result (19.1%). The LCA identified two distinct groups: 'all-rounders' (88%), who considered every attribute as important, and a 'cost-focussed' group (12%), who mainly focussed on the price. On the basis of the currently available app attributes, the predicted uptake was 72%. In the short term, a more feasible scenario of improving AI accuracy to 80-89% with clinician verification at a $5 cost could increase uptake to 90%. A long-term optimistic scenario with AI accuracy over 95%, no clinician verification and no cost could increase it to 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

Preferences for an AI-assisted screening app targeting STI-related anogenital skin lesions are one that is low-cost, clinician-verified, highly accurate and provides results rapidly. An app with these key qualities would substantially improve user uptake.