Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) in the domain of health care is increasing in prominence. Acceptance is an indispensable prerequisite for the widespread implementation of AI. Objective: This study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators influencing patients' acceptance of AI. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Nine databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase, were comprehensively searched from inception to December 23, 2025. We included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies investigating adult patients' attitudes toward medical AI. Two researchers independently screened records, extracted data, and appraised methodological quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach, data synthesis was guided by integrating the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Factors were mapped to behavior change techniques (BCTs) and evaluated for practical feasibility using the Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, and Equity criteria. Results: A total of 61 studies met the inclusion criteria out of 7452 search results. Study designs included qualitative (n=20), quantitative (n=35), and mixed methods (n=6). Performance and effort expectancies were the primary determinants of acceptance. Major barriers comprised perceived operational complexity, lack of algorithmic trust, reduced interpersonal interaction, privacy vulnerabilities, and high costs. Facilitators included transparent data governance, interpretability of AI decisions, improved clinician-patient communication, and human-centered design. Education level and disease severity emerged as key moderating variables. Through UTAUT2-TDF mapping, we identified 25 distinct BCTs (6 high, 14 medium, and 5 low feasibility) and formulated 40 actionable intervention strategies. Conclusions: This study innovatively integrates the UTAUT2 and TDF frameworks to evaluate patient acceptance of medical AI. Unlike existing reviews that predominantly evaluate isolated psychosocial factors or purely technical attributes, this transtheoretical approach differentiates itself by merging technology adoption mechanisms directly with behavioral drivers. Consequently, it contributes to the field by systematically identifying multilevel factors influencing acceptance, including performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and ethical security, and translating these into 40 actionable BCTs. In real-world clinical practice, these findings provide a feasible, prioritized blueprint for clinicians and administrators to design patient-centered interventions, enhancing the clinical integration and long-term effectiveness of medical AI.
Shi et al. (Fri,) studied this question.