Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Widespread adoption of artificial intelligence into surgical care heavily depends on clinician and patient attitudes, which remain poorly characterized. This scoping review aimed to synthesize existing literature on clinician and patient perspectives toward the use of artificial intelligence in perioperative settings and to identify reported barriers and facilitators to its integration. METHODS: A scoping review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science was conducted for studies published up to June 2024 that reported surgeon or patient perspectives on artificial intelligence use in surgical care. Findings were qualitatively analyzed and synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis scoping review guidelines. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred fifty-eight records were screened, and 16 studies met inclusion criteria. Four themes emerged: (1) familiarity with artificial intelligence, (2) confidence and trust, (3) expectations for use, and (4) ethical concerns and liability. Surgeons and patients acknowledged potential benefits of artificial intelligence, particularly in preoperative decision-making. Trust was greater when artificial intelligence functioned as a decision-support tool rather than an autonomous system. As artificial intelligence systems became more autonomous, comfort levels declined. Limited understanding of artificial intelligence concepts was reported, alongside concerns regarding transparency, reliability, data privacy, and legislative responsibilities. CONCLUSION: Successful integration of artificial intelligence into surgical practice requires education for both clinicians and patients, development of transparent and interpretable systems, and clear governance frameworks addressing consent, privacy, and liability. Incorporating stakeholder perspectives during artificial intelligence development may help facilitate ethical, patient-centered adoption in perioperative care.
Musa et al. (Thu,) studied this question.