Explore the vast range of titles available.

While there is significant enthusiasm in the medical community about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in healthcare, few research studies have sought to assess patient perspectives on these technologies. We conducted 15 focus groups examining patient views of diverse applications of AI in healthcare. Our results indicate that patients have multiple concerns, including concerns related to the safety of AI, threats to patient choice, potential increases in healthcare costs, data-source bias, and data security. We also found that patient acceptance of AI is contingent on mitigating these possible harms. Our results highlight an array of patient concerns that may limit enthusiasm for applications of AI in healthcare. Proactively addressing these concerns is critical for the flourishing of ethical innovation and ensuring the long-term success of AI applications in healthcare.

Background While use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is increasing, little is known about how patients view healthcare AI. Characterizing patient attitudes and beliefs about healthcare AI and the factors that lead to these attitudes can help ensure patient values are in close alignment with the implementation of these new technologies. Methods We conducted 15 focus groups with adult patients who had a recent primary care visit at a large academic health center. Using modified grounded theory, focus-group data was analyzed for themes related to the formation of attitudes and beliefs about healthcare AI. Results When evaluating AI in healthcare, we found that patients draw on a variety of factors to contextualize these new technologies including previous experiences of illness, interactions with health systems and established health technologies, comfort with other information technology, and other personal experiences. We found that these experiences informed normative and cultural beliefs about the values and goals of healthcare technologies that patients applied when engaging with AI. The results of this study form the basis for a theoretical framework for understanding patient orientation to applications of AI in healthcare, highlighting a number of specific social, health, and technological experiences that will likely shape patient opinions about future healthcare AI applications. Conclusions Understanding the basis of patient attitudes and beliefs about healthcare AI is a crucial first step in effective patient engagement and education. The theoretical framework we present provides a foundation for future studies examining patient opinions about applications of AI in healthcare.

Purpose Secondary findings are typically offered in an all or none fashion when sequencing is used for clinical purposes. This study aims to describe the process of offering categorical and granular choices for results in a large research consortium. Methods Within the third phase of the electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics (eMERGE) Network, several sites implemented studies that allowed participants to choose the type of results they wanted to receive from a multigene sequencing panel. Sites were surveyed to capture the details of the implementation protocols and results of these choices. Results Across the ten eMERGE sites, 4664 participants including adolescents and adults were offered some type of choice. Categories of choices offered and methods for selecting categories varied. Most participants (94.5%) chose to learn all genetic results, while 5.5% chose subsets of results. Several sites allowed participants to change their choices at various time points, and 0.5% of participants made changes. Conclusion Offering choices that include learning some results is important and should be a dynamic process to allow for changes in scientific knowledge, participant age group, and individual preference.

PurposeThe Mayo Clinic Biobank was established to provide a large group of patients from which comparison groups (ie, controls) could be selected for case–control studies, to create a prospective cohort with sufficient power for common outcomes and to support electronic health record (EHR) studies.ParticipantsA total of 56 862 participants enrolled (21% response rate) into the Mayo Clinic Biobank from Rochester, Minnesota (77%, n=43 836), Jacksonville, Florida (18%, n=10 368) and La Crosse, Wisconsin (5%, n=2658). Participants were all Mayo Clinic patients, 18 years of age or older and US residents.Findings to dateOverall, 43% of participants were 65 years of age or older and female participants were more frequent (59%) than males at all sites. Most participants resided in the Upper Midwest regions of the USA (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois or Wisconsin), Florida or Georgia. Self-reported race among Biobank participants was 90% white. Here we provide examples of the types of studies that have successfully utilised the resource, including (1) investigations of the population itself, (2) provision of controls for case–control studies, (3) genotype-driven research, (4) EHR-based research and (5) prospective recruitment to other studies. Over 270 projects have been approved to date to access Biobank data and/or samples; over 200 000 sample aliquots have been approved for distribution.Future plansThe data and samples in the Mayo Clinic Biobank can be used for various types of epidemiological and clinical studies, especially in the setting of case–control studies for which the Biobank samples serve as control samples. We are planning cohort studies with additional follow-up and acquisition of genetic information on a large scale.

PurposeThe Sangre Por Salud (SPS) Biobank was established to facilitate biomedical research opportunities for the Latino community by creating an easily accessible prospective cohort for scientists interested in studying health conditions and health disparities in this population.ParticipantsIndividuals self-identifying as Latino, aged 18–85 years, were prospectively recruited from the primary care Internal Medicine clinic at Mountain Park Health Center in Phoenix, Arizona. After obtaining informed consent, detailed medical history questionnaires were captured, and blood samples were obtained for common laboratory tests. Participants authorised the research team to access their electronic health records for research purposes. In addition, participants had serum, plasma and DNA samples isolated and stored at the Mayo Clinic Arizona Biorepository Laboratory for long-term storage and future access. As part of the study, participants consented and agreed to be contacted for potential participation in future research studies.Findings to date3756 participants provided informed consent, of whom 3733 completed all study questionnaires, an oral glucose tolerance test and had blood collected and stored. The SPS cohort is predominantly composed of females (72%), with a median age at time of consent of 42 years. All participants self-identified as Hispanic/Latino, 45% were married, 53% were employed for wages and 60% had less than a high school degree. Around 25% of participants met diagnostic criteria for overweight (BMI 25–29 kg/m2), and 49% met for obesity (BMI≥30 kg/m2). At time of recruitment, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and depression affected 22%, 20% and 13% of the cohort, respectively.Future plansWe plan to regularly update the participants’ electronic health records and self-reported health data to longitudinal research. Additionally, we plan to obtain a more comprehensive genomic analysis on the entire cohort, ensuring greater research interest and investigation into the underlying genetic factors that contribute to disease susceptibility in this cohort.

As artificial intelligence (AI) tools are integrated more widely in psychiatric medicine, it is important to consider the impact these tools will have on clinical practice. This study aimed to characterize physician perspectives on the potential impact AI tools will have in psychiatric medicine. We interviewed 42 physicians (21 psychiatrists and 21 family medicine practitioners). These interviews used detailed clinical case scenarios involving the use of AI technologies in the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of psychiatric conditions. Interviews were transcribed and subsequently analyzed using qualitative analysis methods. Physicians highlighted multiple potential benefits of AI tools, including potential support for optimizing pharmaceutical efficacy, reducing administrative burden, aiding shared decision-making, and increasing access to health services, and were optimistic about the long-term impact of these technologies. This optimism was tempered by concerns about potential near-term risks to both patients and themselves including misguiding clinical judgment, increasing clinical burden, introducing patient harms, and creating legal liability. Our results highlight the importance of considering specialist perspectives when deploying AI tools in psychiatric medicine.

Pharmacogenomic (PGx) biomarkers integrated using machine learning can be embedded within the electronic health record (EHR) to provide clinicians with individualized predictions of drug treatment outcomes. Currently, however, drug alerts in the EHR are largely generic (not patient‐specific) and contribute to increased clinician stress and burnout. Improving the usability of PGx alerts is an urgent need. Therefore, this work aimed to identify principles for optimal PGx alert design through a health‐system‐wide, mixed‐methods study. Clinicians representing multiple practices and care settings (N = 1062) in urban, rural, and underserved regions were invited to complete an electronic survey comparing the usability of three drug alerts for citalopram, as a case study. Alert 1 contained a generic warning of pharmacogenomic effects on citalopram metabolism. Alerts 2 and 3 provided patient‐specific predictions of citalopram efficacy with varying depth of information. Primary outcomes included the System's Usability Scale score (0–100 points) of each alert, the perceived impact of each alert on stress and decision‐making, and clinicians' suggestions for alert improvement. Secondary outcomes included the assessment of alert preference by clinician age, practice type, and geographic setting. Qualitative information was captured to provide context to quantitative information. The final cohort comprised 305 geographically and clinically diverse clinicians. A simplified, individualized alert (Alert 2) was perceived as beneficial for decision‐making and stress compared with a more detailed version (Alert 3) and the generic alert (Alert 1) regardless of age, practice type, or geographic setting. Findings emphasize the need for clinician‐guided design of PGx alerts in the era of digital medicine.

The therapeutic relationship is a professional partnership between clinicians and patients that supports open communication and clinical decision-making. This relationship is critical to the delivery of effective mental health care. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into mental health care has the potential to support accessibility and personalized care; however, little is known about how AI might affect the dynamics of the therapeutic relationship. This study aimed to ascertain how physicians anticipate AI tools will impact the therapeutic relationship in mental health care. We conducted 42 in-depth interviews with psychiatrists and family medicine practitioners to investigate physician perceptions regarding the impact of AI on mental health care. Physicians identified several disruptions from AI use, noting that these tools could impact the dyad of the patient-physician relationship in ways that are both positive and negative. The main themes that emerged included potential disruptions to the therapeutic relationship, shifts in shared decision-making dynamics, and the importance of transparent AI use. Participants suggested that AI tools could create efficiencies that allow for relationship building as well as help avoid issues with miscommunication during psychotherapeutic interactions. However, they also expressed concerns that AI tools might not adequately capture aspects of the therapeutic relationship, such as empathy, that are vital to mental health care. Physicians also raised issues related to the impact that AI tools will have on maintaining relationships with patients. As AI applications become increasingly integrated into mental health care, it is crucial to assess how this integration may support or disrupt the therapeutic relationship. Physician acceptance of emerging AI tools may be highly dependent on how well the human elements of mental health care are preserved.

Background: Polygenic risk testing examines variation across multiple genes to estimate a risk score for a particular disease, including risk scores for many common, chronic health conditions. Although polygenic risk information (PRI) may be a promising tool for enhancing preventive counseling and facilitating early identification of disease, its potential impact on primary-care encounters and disease prevention efforts has not been well characterized. Methods: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients to assess their understandings of PRI and their beliefs about its relevance to disease prevention. Results: We completed interviews with 19 participants. Participants described enthusiasm for the generation of PRI and recognized its utility for disease prevention. Participants also described the value of PRI as limited if not corroborated by non-genetic risk factors. Finally, participants noted that PRI, by itself, would be insufficient as a trigger for initiating many preventive interventions. Conclusion: PRI has the potential to become an important tool in primary care. However, patient views about PRI as well as the complexities of disease prevention in the primary care context may limit the impact of PRI on disease prevention.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing emerged in the early 2000s as a means of allowing consumers to access information on their genetics without the involvement of a physician. Although early models of DTC were popular with consumers, they were controversial in medical and regulatory circles. In this article, we trace the history of DTC genetic testing, discuss its regulatory implications, and describe the emergence of a new hybrid model we call DTC 2.0.