JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Despite the increasing availability of Computerized Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) and rising expectation for CDSSs based on artificial intelligence (AI), little is known about the acceptance of AI-based CDSS by physicians and its barriers and facilitators in emergency care settings.

Objective:

We aimed to evaluate the acceptance, barriers and facilitators to implementing AI-based CDSSs in the emergency care setting through the opinions of physicians on our newly developed, real-time AI-based CDSS which alerts ED physicians by predicting aortic dissection based on numeric and text information from medical charts, by using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; for quantitative evaluation) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) frameworks (for qualitative evaluation).

Methods:

This mixed-methods study was performed from March to April 2021. Transitional year residents (n=6), emergency medicine residents (n=5), and emergency physicians (n=3) from two community, tertiary care hospitals in Japan were included. We first developed a real-time CDSS for predicting aortic dissection based on numeric and text information from medical charts (e.g., chief complaints, medical history, vital signs) with natural language processing. This system was deployed on the Internet, and the participants used the system with clinical vignettes of model cases. Participants were then involved in a mixed-methods evaluation consisting of a UTAUT-based questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale (quantitative) and a CFIR-based semi-structured interview (qualitative). Cronbach's alpha was calculated as a reliability estimate for UTAUT subconstructs. Interviews were sampled, transcribed, and analyzed using the MaxQDA software. Framework Analysis approach was used during the study to determine the relevance of the CFIR constructs.

Results:

All 14 participants completed the questionnaires and interviews. Quantitative analysis revealed generally positive responses for user acceptance with all scores above the neutral score of 3.0. In addition, the mixed-methods analysis identified two significant barriers (System Performance, Compatibility) and two major facilitators (Evidence Strength, Design quality) for implementation of AI-based CDSSs in emergency care settings.

Conclusions:

Our mixed-methods evaluation based on theoretically grounded frameworks revealed the acceptance, barriers and facilitators of implementation of AI-based CDSS. While the concern of system failure and over-trusting of the system could be barriers to implementation, the locality of the system and designing an intuitive user interface could likely facilitate the use of optimal AI-based CDSS. Alleviating and resolving these factors should be key to achieving good user acceptance of AI-based CDSS.