Background Artificial intelligence (AI) for use in health care and social services is rapidly developing, but this has significant ethical, legal, and social implications. Theoretical and conceptual research in AI ethics needs to be complemented with empirical research to understand the values and judgments of members of the public, who will be the ultimate recipients of AI-enabled services. Objective The aim of the Australian Values and Attitudes on AI (AVA-AI) study was to assess and compare Australians’ general and particular judgments regarding the use of AI, compare Australians’ judgments regarding different health care and social service applications of AI, and determine the attributes of health care and social service AI systems that Australians consider most important. Methods We conducted a survey of the Australian population using an innovative sampling and weighting methodology involving 2 sample components: one from an omnibus survey using a sample selected using scientific probability sampling methods and one from a nonprobability-sampled web-based panel. The web-based panel sample was calibrated to the omnibus survey sample using behavioral, lifestyle, and sociodemographic variables. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed. Results We included weighted responses from 1950 Australians in the web-based panel along with a further 2498 responses from the omnibus survey for a subset of questions. Both weighted samples were sociodemographically well spread. An estimated 60% of Australians support the development of AI in general but, in specific health care scenarios, this diminishes to between 27% and 43% and, for social service scenarios, between 31% and 39%. Although all ethical and social dimensions of AI presented were rated as important, accuracy was consistently the most important and reducing costs the least important. Speed was also consistently lower in importance. In total, 4 in 5 Australians valued continued human contact and discretion in service provision more than any speed, accuracy, or convenience that AI systems might provide. Conclusions The ethical and social dimensions of AI systems matter to Australians. Most think AI systems should augment rather than replace humans in the provision of both health care and social services. Although expressing broad support for AI, people made finely tuned judgments about the acceptability of particular AI applications with different potential benefits and downsides. Further qualitative research is needed to understand the reasons underpinning these judgments. The participation of ethicists, social scientists, and the public can help guide AI development and implementation, particularly in sensitive and value-laden domains such as health care and social services.

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND Artificial intelligence (AI) for use in healthcare and social services is rapidly developing, but this has significant ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). Theoretical and conceptual research in AI ethics is rapidly expanding; empirical research is needed to understand the values and judgements of members of the public, who will be the ultimate recipients of AI-enabled services. OBJECTIVE To assess and compare Australians’ general and particular judgements regarding the use of AI, to compare Australians’ judgements about different healthcare and social service applications of AI, and to determine the attributes of health and social service AI systems that Australians consider most important. METHODS We conducted a survey of the Australian population using an innovative sampling and weighting methodology involving two sample components, one from an omnibus survey using a sample selected by scientific probability sampling methods, and one from a non-probability sampled online panel. The online panel sample was calibrated to the omnibus survey sample using behavioural, lifestyle and socio-demographic variables. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS We included weighted responses from 1950 Australians in the online panel, along with a further 2498 from the omnibus survey for a subset of questions. Both weighted samples were socio-demographically well spread. An estimated 60% of Australians support the development of AI in general, but in specific healthcare scenarios this diminishes to between 27 and 43%, and for social service scenarios between 31 and 39%. While all ethical and social dimensions of AI presented were rated as important, accuracy was consistently the most important and reducing costs the least important; speed was also consistently lower in importance. Four in five Australians valued continued human contact and discretion in service provision more than any speed, accuracy, or convenience that AI systems might provide. CONCLUSIONS The ethical and social dimensions of AI systems matter to Australians. AI systems should augment rather than replace humans in the provision of both health and social services, and these AI systems should reflect human values. There must be meaningful and active participation of ethicists, social scientists and the public in AI development and implementation, particularly in sensitive and value-laden domains such as healthcare and social services.

One in four school children in Australia are overweight or obese. In response, the Healthy Eats program was developed, piloted, and delivered using a whole-of-school approach underpinned by the socio-ecological model to increase fruit and vegetable consumption among children aged 8–10 years in regional Queensland, Australia. This research presents an outcome evaluation of the Healthy Eats program using pre–post data collected throughout 2021 (cross-sectional for knowledge and longitudinal for behaviour) from 19 schools to assess whether changes occurred in students’ nutritional knowledge (n = 1868 (pre = 933, post = 935)) and fruit and vegetable consumption (n = 1042 (pre = 521, post = 521)). Knowledge data was collected via self-reports two weeks prior and immediately after the Nutrition Module. Behavioural data on daily fruit and vegetable consumption was gathered via student passports (i.e., surveys) one week before and for four consecutive weeks after the Nutrition Module. Chi-Square Difference tests and t-Tests were conducted with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Across all 19 schools, knowledge of the daily recommended serves of fruit and vegetables improved significantly following participation in the program, aligning knowledge closer to the Australian dietary guidelines. Behavioural results for fruit consumption were favourable, with clear improvements reported. Increases in vegetable consumption were demonstrated in two of the eight schools. A discussion on the knowledge–action gap is provided, including recommendations for future iterations of the Healthy Eats program.