This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background and Objectives: As artificial intelligence (AI) and extended reality (XR) enter routine care, understanding patient acceptance is essential. We assessed attitudes toward AI/XR-enabled telemedicine among Romanian patients and examined correlates of acceptance. Methods: We analyzed 198 survey responses to a 20-item questionnaire. Ordinal items were encoded 1–4. The Acceptance Index measured trust in AI, perceived improvement in care, and willingness to choose AI-assisted visits (on a 1–4 scale). Results: Respondents were predominantly 31–50 years old (62.6%) and university educated (76.2%); 27.3% reported prior experience with AI/XR. Acceptance averaged 3.27 ± 0.59 (α = 0.780) and did not differ by age (p = 0.922). Prior users showed higher acceptance than non-users (3.47 ± 0.47 vs. 3.19 ± 0.59; p = 0.0011). Knowledge (ρ = 0.189, p = 0.048) and perceived accessibility (ρ = 0.229, p = 0.016) correlated with acceptance; privacy concern did not (ρ = 0.072, p = 0.455). Subgroups: Prior use was associated with higher acceptance across education levels, with a significant effect in secondary education (Holm-adjusted p = 0.029; Cliff’s δ = 0.56). Ordinal logistic model: higher willingness to pay (OR 6.81, 95% CI 3.39–13.66, p < 0.001) and greater perceived accessibility (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.03–3.24, p = 0.040) independently predicted choosing AI-assisted visits. Conclusions: Patient acceptance of AI/XR-enabled telemedicine was moderate to high, strongest among prior users, and increased when access felt easy. Knowledge modestly supported acceptance; privacy concerns did not diminish it. Clear value propositions, streamlined access, and optional exposure pathways may enhance informed uptake.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Levai et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: