RESUMEN
Background: Diagnosis is a cornerstone of medical practice. Worldwide, there is increased demand for diagnostic services, exacerbating workforce shortages. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies may improve diagnostic efficiency, accuracy, and access. Understanding stakeholder perspectives is key to informing implementation of complex interventions. We systematically reviewed the literature on stakeholder perspectives on diagnostic AI, including all English-language peer-reviewed primary qualitative or mixed-methods research. Methods: We searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE/Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and Web of Science (22/2/2023 and updated 8/2/2024). The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist informed critical appraisal. We used a 'best-fit' framework approach for analysis, using the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, Sustainability (NASSS) framework. This study was pre-registered (PROSPERO CRD42022313782). Findings: We screened 16,577 articles and included 44. 689 participants were interviewed, and 402 participated in focus groups. Four stakeholder groups were described: patients, clinicians, researchers and healthcare leaders. We found an under-representation of patients, researchers and leaders across articles. We summarise the differences and relationships between each group in a conceptual model, hinging on the establishment of trust, engagement and collaboration. We present a modification of the NASSS framework, tailored to diagnostic AI. Interpretation: We provide guidance for future research and implementation of diagnostic AI, highlighting the importance of representing all stakeholder groups. We suggest that implementation strategies consider how any proposed software fits within the extended NASSS-AI framework, and how stakeholder priorities and concerns have been addressed. Funding: RK is supported by an NIHR Doctoral Research Fellowship grant (NIHR302562), which funded patient and public involvement activities, and access to Covidence.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Cognitive remediation (CR) can reduce the cognitive difficulties experienced by people with psychosis. Adapting CR to be delivered remotely provides new opportunities for extending its use. However, doing so requires further evaluation of its acceptability from service users' views. We evaluate the acceptability of therapist-supported remote CR from the perspectives of service users using participatory service user-centred methods. METHOD: After receiving 12 weeks of therapist-supported remote CR, service users were interviewed by a service user researcher following a semi-structured 18-question interview guide. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis with themes and codes further validated by a Lived Experience Advisory Panel and member checking. RESULTS: The study recruited 26 participants, almost all of whom reported high acceptability of remote CR, and some suggested improvements. Four themes emerged: (1) perceived treatment benefits, (2) remote versus in-person therapy, (3) the therapist's role, and (4) how it could be better. CONCLUSIONS: This study used comprehensive service user involvement methods. For some participants, technology use remained a challenge and addressing these difficulties detracted from the therapy experience. These outcomes align with existing research on remote therapy, suggesting that remote CR can expand choice and improve access to treatment for psychosis service users once barriers are addressed. Future use of remote CR should consider technology training and equipment provision to facilitate therapy for service users and therapists.
