TY - JOUR
T1 - Factors influencing clinician and patient interaction with machine learning-based risk prediction models
T2 - a systematic review
AU - Giddings, Rebecca
AU - Joseph, Anabel
AU - Callender, Thomas
AU - Janes, Sam M.
AU - van der Schaar, Mihaela
AU - Sheringham, Jessica
AU - Navani, Neal
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license
PY - 2024/2
Y1 - 2024/2
N2 - Machine learning (ML)-based risk prediction models hold the potential to support the health-care setting in several ways; however, use of such models is scarce. We aimed to review health-care professional (HCP) and patient perceptions of ML risk prediction models in published literature, to inform future risk prediction model development. Following database and citation searches, we identified 41 articles suitable for inclusion. Article quality varied with qualitative studies performing strongest. Overall, perceptions of ML risk prediction models were positive. HCPs and patients considered that models have the potential to add benefit in the health-care setting. However, reservations remain; for example, concerns regarding data quality for model development and fears of unintended consequences following ML model use. We identified that public views regarding these models might be more negative than HCPs and that concerns (eg, extra demands on workload) were not always borne out in practice. Conclusions are tempered by the low number of patient and public studies, the absence of participant ethnic diversity, and variation in article quality. We identified gaps in knowledge (particularly views from under-represented groups) and optimum methods for model explanation and alerts, which require future research.
AB - Machine learning (ML)-based risk prediction models hold the potential to support the health-care setting in several ways; however, use of such models is scarce. We aimed to review health-care professional (HCP) and patient perceptions of ML risk prediction models in published literature, to inform future risk prediction model development. Following database and citation searches, we identified 41 articles suitable for inclusion. Article quality varied with qualitative studies performing strongest. Overall, perceptions of ML risk prediction models were positive. HCPs and patients considered that models have the potential to add benefit in the health-care setting. However, reservations remain; for example, concerns regarding data quality for model development and fears of unintended consequences following ML model use. We identified that public views regarding these models might be more negative than HCPs and that concerns (eg, extra demands on workload) were not always borne out in practice. Conclusions are tempered by the low number of patient and public studies, the absence of participant ethnic diversity, and variation in article quality. We identified gaps in knowledge (particularly views from under-represented groups) and optimum methods for model explanation and alerts, which require future research.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85183053379&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00241-8
DO - 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00241-8
M3 - Review article
C2 - 38278615
AN - SCOPUS:85183053379
SN - 2589-7500
VL - 6
SP - e131-e144
JO - The Lancet Digital Health
JF - The Lancet Digital Health
IS - 2
ER -