Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Previously submitted to: Journal of Medical Internet Research (no longer under consideration since Jan 21, 2023)

Date Submitted: Oct 7, 2022
Open Peer Review Period: Oct 7, 2022 - Oct 17, 2022
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint

Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).

Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.

Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).

Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.

Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.

Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Attitudes of Anesthesiologists Towards Artificial Intelligence in Anesthesia: An International, Mixed Qualitative-Quantitative Study

  • David Henckert; 
  • Amos Malorgio; 
  • Giovanna Schweiger; 
  • Florian J Raimann; 
  • Florian Piekarski; 
  • Kai Zacharowski; 
  • Sebastian Hottenrott; 
  • Patrick Meybohm; 
  • David W Tscholl; 
  • Donat R Spahn; 
  • Tadzio R Roche

ABSTRACT

Background:

Artificial intelligence (AI) is predicted to play an increasingly important role in perioperative medicine in the very near future. However, little is known about what anesthesiologists know and think about AI in this context. This is important because the successful introduction of new technologies depends on the understanding and cooperation of end users.

Objective:

Investigate how much anesthesiologists know about AI, and what they think about the introduction of AI-based technologies into the clinical setting.

Methods:

In order to better understand what anesthesiologists think of AI, we recruited 21 anesthesiologists from two university hospitals for face-to-face structured interviews. Thematic analysis was applied to statements derived from these interviews, and key themes were determined. Subsequently, a survey of closed questions based on these themes was sent to 70 anesthesiologists from three university hospitals for rating.

Results:

In the interviews, the base level of knowledge of AI was good at 86 of 90 statements (96%), although awareness of potential applications of AI in anesthesia was poor at only 7 of 42 statements (17%). Regarding the implementation of AI in anesthesia, statements were split roughly evenly between pros (46 of 105, 44%) and cons (59 of 105, 56%). Interviewees considered that AI could usefully be used in diverse tasks such as risk stratification, the prediction of vital sign changes, or as a treatment guide. The validity of these themes was probed in a follow-up survey of 70 anesthesiologists with a response rate of 70%, which confirmed an overall positive view of AI in this group.

Conclusions:

Anesthesiologists hold a range of opinions, both positive and negative, regarding the application of AI in their field of work. Survey-based studies do not always uncover the full breadth of nuance of opinion amongst clinicians. Engagement with specific concerns, both technical and ethical, will prove important as this technology moves from research into the clinic.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Henckert D, Malorgio A, Schweiger G, Raimann FJ, Piekarski F, Zacharowski K, Hottenrott S, Meybohm P, Tscholl DW, Spahn DR, Roche TR

Attitudes of Anesthesiologists Towards Artificial Intelligence in Anesthesia: An International, Mixed Qualitative-Quantitative Study

JMIR Preprints. 07/10/2022:43290

DOI: 10.2196/preprints.43290

URL: https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/43290

PDF not available

The author of this paper has made a PDF available, but requires the user to login, or create an account.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.