Radiation Oncologists’ Perceptions of Adopting an Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Contouring Technology: Model Development and Questionnaire Study

Background: An artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted contouring system benefits radiation oncologists by saving time and improving treatment accuracy. Yet, there is much hope and fear surrounding such technologies, and this fear can manifest as resistance from health care professionals, which can le...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of medical Internet research 2021-09, Vol.23 (9), p.e27122
Hauptverfasser: Zhai, Huiwen, Yang, Xin, Xue, Jiaolong, Lavender, Christopher, Ye, Tiantian, Li, Ji-Bin, Xu, Lanyang, Lin, Li, Cao, Weiwei, Sun, Ying
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: An artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted contouring system benefits radiation oncologists by saving time and improving treatment accuracy. Yet, there is much hope and fear surrounding such technologies, and this fear can manifest as resistance from health care professionals, which can lead to the failure of AI projects. Objective: The objective of this study was to develop and test a model for investigating the factors that drive radiation oncologists’ acceptance of AI contouring technology in a Chinese context. Methods: A model of AI-assisted contouring technology acceptance was developed based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model by adding the variables of perceived risk and resistance that were proposed in this study. The model included 8 constructs with 29 questionnaire items. A total of 307 respondents completed the questionnaires. Structural equation modeling was conducted to evaluate the model’s path effects, significance, and fitness. Results: The overall fitness indices for the model were evaluated and showed that the model was a good fit to the data. Behavioral intention was significantly affected by performance expectancy (β=.155; P=.01), social influence (β=.365; P
ISSN:1438-8871
1439-4456
1438-8871
DOI:10.2196/27122