Preference, Patient
Conditions
Keywords
AI
Brief summary
This study aims to evaluate whether patients have different preference patterns for empathetic communication through AI vs human-being when knowledge of authorship is known vs blinded.
Detailed description
Hypothesis: Patients will express increased preference for human-generated empathetic communication vs AI-generated empathetic communication when they are made aware of authorship vs when blinded to it. Aims, purpose, or objectives: Evaluate if patients have different preference patterns for empathetic communication through AI vs human-being when knowledge of authorship is known vs blinded Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly gaining a foothold in the healthcare industry. AI's role in healthcare can largely be divided into two sets of tasks: Those which involve direct interaction with patients and those which do not. Many tasks which do not directly interact with patients, such as monitoring and resupplying medications, delivering goods across a hospital, and analyzing practice trends and outcomes are highly likely to benefit from the efficiency, cost-savings, and consistency AI can provide. Tasks involving direct patient interaction are considerably more controversial. Understanding of how patients will respond to AI communication remains quite limited which is concerning considering the rapid expansion of AI into the healthcare space. A logical first step to investigate is to see if patients react to AI communication when they are blinded to it vs when authorship is known. This concept has previously been tested in other industries such as business and the law, but patient communication preference in healthcare has been little studied, especially in palliative care. It is the aim of this study to investigate this.
Interventions
OTHERSurvey
Patients complete survey
Sponsors
Mayo Clinic
Study design
Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Patients over the age of 18 being seen in palliative care clinic who have already established care and with diagnosis of any malignancy
Exclusion criteria
* Inability to consent defined as: Acute mental status changes (delirium/encephalopathy), acute substance intoxication, intellectual disability, dementia, patient with active legal guardian * Major psychiatric disorders including, but not limited to, bipolar disorder, psychotic disorders, active substance use disorder, and patients with active suicidal or homicidal thoughts. * NOTE: Patients with history of normal grieving reactions, major unipolar depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder or generalized anxiety disorder would NOT be excluded. * Inability to read in English
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Preference patterns for empathetic communication | Baseline | Assessed by a brief survey: patients will be show two brief empathetic statements related to their serious illness diagnosis (Cancer), one generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and one generated by a human physician in palliative care who were both given the same writing instructions and generated their responses independently. Half of the surveys will label which statement is generated by human or AI unblinded group) and the other half will be blinded to statement authorship. Preference will be compared between the blinded and unblinded groups. |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed