health-psychology
Do clinicians want AI help for multimorbidity decisions?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Twenty HCPs saw AI as potentially safer for MLTC decisions but required trust, time-saving integration, transparent rationale, and preserved human final say.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.
Inspect source passages
Do clinicians want AI help for multimorbidity decisions?
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
20 HCPs were interviewed.
In total, 20 HCPs, including general practitioners, geriatricians, nurses, and pharmacists, were interviewed.
MLTC theme 1?
balancing multiple competing factors, including accounting for patients’ social circumstances
Key findings
MLTC work meant balancing competing factors/social context, managing polypharmacy, and working beyond single-condition guidelines. HCPs expected AI to improve safety/quality but worried about harming the therapeutic relationship. Adoption prerequisites: public/patient trust, time savings/system integration, and visible rationale with experienced clinician final decision.
Methodology
Interviewed 20 HCPs (GPs, geriatricians, nurses, pharmacists) about MLTC management and used a patient case study to probe how an AI tool might change decisions, organizing themes with Buck’s determinants of attitudes toward AI.
Limitations
Interview attitudes do not measure real-world AI performance, safety, or adoption after deployment.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.