IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pdig00/0000114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

German medical students´ views regarding artificial intelligence in medicine: A cross-sectional survey

Author

Listed:
  • Stuart McLennan
  • Andrea Meyer
  • Korbinian Schreyer
  • Alena Buyx

Abstract

Background: Medical students will likely be most impacted by the envisaged move to artificial intelligence (AI) driven digital medicine, and there is a need to better understand their views regarding the use of AI technology in medicine. This study aimed to explore German medical students´ views about AI in medicine. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in October 2019 with all new medical students at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and the Technical University Munich. This represented approximately 10% of all new medical students in Germany. Results: A total of 844 medical students participated (91.9% response rate). Two thirds (64.4%) did not feel well informed about AI in medicine. Just over a half (57.4%) of students thought that AI has useful applications in medicine, particularly in drug research and development (82.5%), less so for clinical uses. Male students were more likely to agree with advantages of AI, and female participants were more likely to be concerned about disadvantages. The vast majority of students thought that when AI is used in medicine that it is important that there are legal rules regarding liability (97%) and oversight mechanisms (93.7%), that physicians should be consulted prior to implementation (96.8%), that developers should be able to explain to them the details of the algorithm (95.6%), that algorithms should use representative data (93.9%), and that patients should always be informed when AI is used (93.5%). Conclusions: Medical schools and continuing medical education organisers need to promptly develop programs to ensure that clinicians are able to fully realize the potential of AI technology. It is also important that legal rules and oversight are implemented to ensure that future clinicians are not faced with a workplace where important issues around responsibility are not clearly regulated. Author summary: Medical students will likely be most impacted by the expected move to AI-driven digital medicine and there is a need to better understand their views regarding the topic. Germany offers a useful setting to examine these issues due to the number of AI initiatives in healthcare and the recently enacted Digital Healthcare Act. In contrast to previous studies that have typically used small online samples and focused on radiology, we used a paper-based survey and focus on Munich medical students´ general views about AI in medicine, and achieved a very high (92%) response rate. We found that medical students had relatively low awareness regarding AI in medicine and that the issue of responsibility was a major concern for them. These findings support calls for education programs to be developed to ensure that clinicians are able to fully realize the potential of AI technology. It is also important that legal rules and oversight are implemented to ensure that future clinicians are not faced with a workplace where important issues around responsibility are not clearly regulated.

Suggested Citation

  • Stuart McLennan & Andrea Meyer & Korbinian Schreyer & Alena Buyx, 2022. "German medical students´ views regarding artificial intelligence in medicine: A cross-sectional survey," PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 1(10), pages 1-13, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000114
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000114
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000114&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000114?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fiske, Amelia & Buyx, Alena & Prainsack, Barbara, 2020. "The double-edged sword of digital self-care: Physician perspectives from Northern Germany," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    2. Effy Vayena & Alessandro Blasimme & I Glenn Cohen, 2018. "Machine learning in medicine: Addressing ethical challenges," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-4, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mashael Alsobhi & Harpreet Singh Sachdev & Mohamed Faisal Chevidikunnan & Reem Basuodan & Dhanesh Kumar K U & Fayaz Khan, 2022. "Facilitators and Barriers of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Rehabilitation: A Mixed-Method Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-21, November.
    2. repec:plo:pone00:0239947 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Lepore, Dominique & Dolui, Koustabh & Tomashchuk, Oleksandr & Shim, Heereen & Puri, Chetanya & Li, Yuan & Chen, Nuoya & Spigarelli, Francesca, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research unlocking innovative solutions in healthcare," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Pradeep Kumar & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Ambuj Anand, 2023. "Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Value Formation and Market Performance in Healthcare: the Mediating Role of Patient’s Cognitive Engagement," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 2197-2220, December.
    5. Samuel Fosso Wamba & Maciel M. Queiroz, 2023. "Responsible Artificial Intelligence as a Secret Ingredient for Digital Health: Bibliometric Analysis, Insights, and Research Directions," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 2123-2138, December.
    6. Shachar, Leeor, 2022. "“You become a slightly better doctor”: Doctors adopting integrated medical expertise through interactions with E-patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    7. Lily Popova Zhuhadar & Miltiadis D. Lytras, 2023. "The Application of AutoML Techniques in Diabetes Diagnosis: Current Approaches, Performance, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-24, September.
    8. Delahunty, Fionn & Arcan, Mihael & Johansson, Robert, 2019. "Passive Diagnosis of Mental Health Disorders Incorporating an Empathic Dialogue System," Thesis Commons 98c3q, Center for Open Science.
    9. Carl B. Roth & Andreas Papassotiropoulos & Annette B. Brühl & Undine E. Lang & Christian G. Huber, 2021. "Psychiatry in the Digital Age: A Blessing or a Curse?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-32, August.
    10. Pot, Mirjam & Spalletta, Olivia & Green, Sara, 2024. "Precision medicine in primary care: How GPs envision “old” and “new” forms of personalization," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 358(C).
    11. Torenholt, Rikke & Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, Tine, 2022. "‘Is this something I should be worried about?’: A study of nurses' recontextualisation work when making clinical decisions based on patient reported outcome data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    12. Dessislava Pachamanova & Vera Tilson & Keely Dwyer-Matzky, 2022. "Case Article—Machine Learning, Ethics, and Change Management: A Data-Driven Approach to Improving Hospital Observation Unit Operations," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 178-187, May.
    13. Michael Gerlich, 2024. "Brace for Impact: Facing the AI Revolution and Geopolitical Shifts in a Future Societal Scenario for 2025–2040," Societies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, September.
    14. Uthayasankar Sivarajah & Yichuan Wang & Hossein Olya & Sherin Mathew, 2023. "Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Digital Health and Medical Analytics," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 2117-2122, December.
    15. Esra Zihni & Vince Istvan Madai & Michelle Livne & Ivana Galinovic & Ahmed A Khalil & Jochen B Fiebach & Dietmar Frey, 2020. "Opening the black box of artificial intelligence for clinical decision support: A study predicting stroke outcome," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, April.
    16. Ignat Drozdov & Daniel Forbes & Benjamin Szubert & Mark Hall & Chris Carlin & David J Lowe, 2020. "Supervised and unsupervised language modelling in Chest X-Ray radiological reports," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-16, March.
    17. Morley, Jessica & Machado, Caio C.V. & Burr, Christopher & Cowls, Josh & Joshi, Indra & Taddeo, Mariarosaria & Floridi, Luciano, 2020. "The ethics of AI in health care: A mapping review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    18. Thomas Molala & Jabulani Makhubele, 2021. "A conceptual framework for the ethical deployment of Artificial Intelligence in addressing mental health challenges: Guidelines for Social Workers," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 24(1), pages 696-706, October.
    19. Siala, Haytham & Wang, Yichuan, 2022. "SHIFTing artificial intelligence to be responsible in healthcare: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    20. Zahlan, Ahmed & Ranjan, Ravi Prakash & Hayes, David, 2023. "Artificial intelligence innovation in healthcare: Literature review, exploratory analysis, and future research," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    21. Mohammad I. Merhi, 2023. "An Assessment of the Barriers Impacting Responsible Artificial Intelligence," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 1147-1160, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.