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.
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.
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.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.