Exploring attitudes and acceptance of artificial intelligence in multiple sclerosis from the patient perspective.
cross_sectional · Level IV
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 42384671.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1371/journal.pdig.0001236.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into healthcare, particularly in data-intensive chronic diseases that rely on longitudinal monitoring and shared decision-making. Multiple sclerosis is a prototypical example of such care, but real-world benefit will depend on whether people accept AI support in different clinical roles. We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey among 241 people with MS (pwMS) to assess comfort with AI across eight clinical domains and to identify predictors of acceptance. We derived an artificial-intelligence attitudes composite with high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = 0.90). Overall acceptance was moderate (mean 3.39 ± 0.78). Acceptance differed across domains, demonstrating a responsibility gradient: comfort was highest for supportive applications such as chronic management (54.4%) and symptom screening (50.2%), but lower for treatment selection (38.6%) and diagnosis (35.3%; P < 0.001). In multivariable models, frequent general AI use (at least weekly; 30.7%) was the strongest independent predictor of acceptance (P < 0.001). Acceptance also differed by region (Eastern vs Western Germany, P = 0.025), whereas clinical disability was not significantly associated. Older age was associated with lower acceptance of AI-supported management. Most participants viewed AI as a logistical support tool but, assuming equal diagnostic accuracy, 78.8% preferred joint artificial-intelligence-clinician decision-making with clinician final responsibility. These findings indicate that acceptance may be context-dependent and more strongly associated with prior familiarity than with disease severity. Implementation should move beyond technical validation to transparent, clinician-led 'human-in-the-loop' workflows with explicit accountability and staged adoption beginning with low-risk use cases.