Stakeholder Perspectives on Clinical Decision Support Tools to Inform Clinical Artificial Intelligence Implementation: Protocol for a Framework Synthesis for Qualitative Evidence

Abstract

Background Quantitative systematic reviews have identified clinical artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled tools with adequate performance for real-world implementation. To our knowledge, no published report or protocol synthesizes the full breadth of stakeholder perspectives. The absence of such a rigorous foundation perpetuates the “AI chasm,” which continues to delay patient benefit. Objective The aim of this research is to synthesize stakeholder perspectives of computerized clinical decision support tools in any health care setting. Synthesized findings will inform future research and the implementation of AI into health care services. Methods The search strategy will use MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCO), ACM Digital Library, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science). Following deduplication, title, abstract, and full text screening will be performed by 2 independent reviewers with a third topic expert arbitrating. The quality of included studies will be appraised to support interpretation. Best-fit framework synthesis will be performed, with line-by-line coding completed by 2 independent reviewers. Where appropriate, these findings will be assigned to 1 of 22 a priori themes defined by the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability framework. New domains will be inductively generated for outlying findings. The placement of findings within themes will be reviewed iteratively by a study advisory group including patient and lay representatives. Results Study registration was obtained from PROSPERO (CRD42021256005) in May 2021. Final searches were executed in April, and screening is ongoing at the time of writing. Full text data analysis is due to be completed in October 2021. We anticipate that the study will be submitted for open-access publication in late 2021. Conclusions This paper describes the protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis aiming to define barriers and facilitators to the implementation of computerized clinical decision support tools from all relevant stakeholders. The results of this study are intended to expedite the delivery of patient benefit from AI-enabled clinical tools. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42021256005; https://tinyurl.com/r4x3thvp International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/33145

Safety and efficacy of an artificial intelligence-enabled decision tool for treatment decisions in neovascular age-related macular degeneration and an exploration of clinical pathway integration and implementation: protocol for a multi-methods validation study

“…31 32 Despite this, the qualitative literature regarding clinical AI is dominated by healthcare professionals' perspectives and has particularly limited representation from carers. 31 Consequently, the present study will aim to explore perspectives from all stakeholders. This will include patients from the NuTH nAMD clinic, carers of patients from the same clinic, doctors, nurses, photographers and optometrists working in the clinics, primary care doctors and optometrists, hospital managers, relevant industry and charity sector professionals, and care commissioners.…”

“…A recent systematic review outlined the importance of all stakeholder perspectives in understanding the interdependent factors that influence clinical AI implementation 31 32. Despite this, the qualitative literature regarding clinical AI is dominated by healthcare professionals’ perspectives and has particularly limited representation from carers 31. Consequently, the present study will aim to explore perspectives from all stakeholders.…”

Stakeholder Perspectives of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Implementation: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence

“…The final most granular level of presentation used an internal referencing system within the Results section to link each assertion of the stakeholder group narratives with its supporting primary data and inductive theme ( Multimedia Appendix 3 [ 33 - 143 ]). Notably, insights relevant to a given stakeholder group’s perspective were often contributed by study participants from different stakeholder groups ( Figure 1 [ 19 ]). This is demonstrated by the selected excerpts contained within the 5 stakeholder group narratives, which are all followed by a brief description of the stakeholders who contributed to the excerpt.…”

“… Sankey diagram illustrating the proportion of 1721 primary study excerpts derived from the voice of each of 5 emergent stakeholder groups and how each excerpt relates to each domain and subdomain of an adapted Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) framework [ 19 ]. EaAOT: embedding and adaptation over time.…”

Evaluating the translation of implementation science to clinical artificial intelligence: a bibliometric study of qualitative research

“…This bibliometric study updates a pre-existent search strategy using AND logic to combine qualitative research with two other concepts; AI-enabled decision support including rule-based and non-rule-based tools and any healthcare context ( 17 , 27 ). The earliest eligibility date of January 2014 was maintained from this prior work, marking the first FDA approvals for “Software as a Medical Device” ( 13 ), but the updated search execution included studies published up to October 2022.…”