IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/q6gne_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bias, Benefit, Or Both? Surveying Perceptions Of Ai In Healthcare

Author

Listed:
  • Adhikari, Ela
  • Lopez, Anitza
  • Lin, Lifeng

    (Florida State University)

  • Li, Fiona

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping healthcare, presenting new opportunities in diagnostics, clinical decision support, workflow optimization, patient engagement, and population health. Yet important concerns remain about trust, transparency, bias, privacy, and the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks. The objective of this study was to compare the perspectives of Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) and non-HCPs on the integration of AI in healthcare, with a focus on identifying perceived benefits, risks, ethical concerns, and barriers to adoption. Methods: We conducted an IRB-approved cross-sectional survey of adults aged ≥18, sampling both HCPs and non-HCPs. The questionnaire assessed perceived benefits and risks of AI, trust in AI systems, health bot applications, privacy and ethical concerns, regulatory priorities, and views on AI’s role in clinical decision-making. Responses from HCPs and non-HCPs were compared using descriptive statistics and group-level difference testing. Results: A total of 297 participants completed the survey, including 189 HCPs and 108 non- HCPs. Both groups expressed strong agreement that AI can improve efficiency, enhance access to care, support diagnosis, reduce medical errors, and aid early disease detection. However, trust in AI systems remained limited: nearly two-thirds of respondents expressed no confidence in AI’s ability to ensure privacy, safeguard data, or make unbiased ethical decisions. HCPs demonstrated greater emphasis on safety, accountability, transparency, and regulatory oversight, particularly in high-risk clinical environments, whereas non-HCPs were more likely to endorse shared responsibility when AI causes harm. Across groups, the majority believed that AI should serve primarily as an assistive tool, with humans retaining decision-making authority. Concerns about cost, infrastructure, and digital literacy were prominent barriers to equitable AI adoption. Conclusions: Despite recognizing AI’s potential benefits, both clinicians and the public remain cautious about its risks and ethical limitations. These findings highlight the need for robust governance, transparent design, targeted education, and human-centered approaches to promote trustworthy, safe, and equitable AI integration in healthcare.

Suggested Citation

  • Adhikari, Ela & Lopez, Anitza & Lin, Lifeng & Li, Fiona, 2025. "Bias, Benefit, Or Both? Surveying Perceptions Of Ai In Healthcare," SocArXiv q6gne_v1, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:q6gne_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/q6gne_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6933a616d1f7760a2f29e00f/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/q6gne_v1?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
    ---><---

    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:osf:socarx:q6gne_v1. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.