Artificial Intelligence in Patient-Centered Care and Macro-, Meso-, and Micro-Level Determinants of Rehumanization and Dehumanization: Qualitative Interview Study
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Healthcare leaders, clinicians, researchers, legal experts, and industry consultants with substantial professional experience across European health care systems (n=20) |
| I — Intervention | Artificial intelligence integration in healthcare settings |
| C — Comparator | Traditional healthcare delivery without AI integration (implicit comparison) |
| O — Outcomes | Factors influencing rehumanization versus dehumanization in patient-centered care across macro-, meso-, and micro-levels |
Bottom Line
This qualitative study provides the first systematic examination of how artificial intelligence integration affects patient-centered care through rehumanizing and dehumanizing dynamics. Drawing on interviews with 20 healthcare stakeholders across European systems, researchers identified 20 key factors operating at policy (macro), institutional (meso), and individual (micro) levels that determine whether AI enhances or undermines human-centered care. The study reveals that AI's impact depends not just on technology capabilities but on regulatory frameworks, institutional strategies, and cultural adaptation. Rehumanizing benefits include reduced administrative burden and improved care pathways, while risks include shorter consultations and reduced empathy. The research offers a valuable theoretical framework for healthcare leaders implementing AI technologies, emphasizing that realizing AI's benefits requires deliberate alignment with patient-centered principles. For Australian healthcare, these findings are particularly relevant as the TGA develops AI regulation and healthcare organizations navigate digital transformation while maintaining therapeutic relationships.
Key Findings
P Value: Not applicable for qualitative research
Effect Size: 8 macro-level, 5 meso-level, and 7 micro-level factors identified
Primary Outcome: Identification of 20 factors across three organizational levels influencing AI's impact on patient-centered care
Nnt Or Sensitivity: Theoretical saturation achieved through systematic thematic analysis
Confidence Interval: Not applicable for qualitative research
Clinical Application
Findings provide actionable framework for healthcare leaders and policymakers to guide AI implementation strategies Relevant to Australian healthcare given similar regulatory challenges and patient-centered care principles. Applicable to TGA AI regulation development and integration with existing RACGP digital health guidelines Healthcare organizations implementing AI technologies, particularly in European healthcare systems with some US context applicability
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care remains a foundational principle of modern health care. The digital transformation of health systems has accelerated the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) across diagnostic, predictive, and communicative functions, with implications for efficiency and clinical workflows. At the same time, AI integration raises concerns regarding transparency, equity, accountability, and trust, positioning it as a potential driver of both rehumanizing and dehumanizing dynamics in health care practice. OBJECTIVE: This study examines how the adoption of AI in health care may influence patient-centered care, exploring its potential to promote rehumanization or contribute to dehumanization. The objective is to identify the factors that shape these outcomes at the macrolevel (policy and infrastructure), mesolevel (institutional practices), and microlevel (individual behaviors and interactions). METHODS: This study adopts an exploratory qualitative design informed by grounded theory principles, drawing on 20 semistructured interviews with health care leaders, clinicians, researchers, legal experts, and industry consultants who have substantial professional experience across European health care systems, with some participants also contributing experience from the US health care context. To enhance analytical rigor and transparency, the study applied the Gioia methodology, enabling inductive coding from first-order concepts to second-order themes and aggregate dimensions. This multistakeholder approach facilitated a nuanced examination of how AI integration is perceived and experienced across macro-, meso-, and microlevels of health care. RESULTS: The analysis identified key system-level factors shaping rehumanizing or dehumanizing outcomes of AI integration. At the macrolevel, 8 factors-including regulatory frameworks, policy priorities, and infrastructure-were identified as influencing whether efficiency pressures outweigh patient-centered values. At the mesolevel, 5 factors related to institutional strategies, workflows, and leadership shape how AI tools are embedded into care delivery. At the microlevel, 7 factors related to individual behaviors, trust, and doctor-patient interaction dynamics influence whether AI supports empathy and engagement or diminishes them. Rehumanizing potentials include reduced administrative burden, improved care pathways, clearer health communication, and enhanced decision-making, while risks include shorter consultations, reduced empathy, overreliance on automation, and erosion of professional identity. Without deliberate alignment with patient-centered principles, efficiency gains risk undermining the human dimensions of care. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents one of the first empirical examinations of how AI shapes health care practices through rehumanizing and dehumanizing dynamics. The findings demonstrate that outcomes depend not only on technical capabilities but also on regulatory frameworks, institutional strategies, and cultural adaptation. By systematically mapping influencing factors across macro-, meso-, and microlevels, the research provides actionable insights for decision-makers to ensure that efficiency gains remain aligned with patient-centered principles. Realizing AI's promise requires coordinated action to preserve empathy, trust, and interpersonal connection, ensuring that innovation strengthens rather than weakens the human dimensions of care.
References
- 1.Horvath, D., & Lorincz, N. S. (2026). Artificial Intelligence in Patient-Centered Care and Macro-, Meso-, and Micro-Level Determinants of Rehumanization and Dehumanization: Qualitative Interview Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 28(5), e82774. https://doi.org/10.2196/82774
Related Research
The Journal of rheumatology
Examining the Role of Wearables in Inflammatory Arthritis Care: A Narrative Literature Review
3 Aug 2026
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ChatGPT in urogynecology: Comparing large language model responses to human experts
3 Aug 2026
Sleep medicine
Concordance of wearable device sleep metrics with patient-reported sleep quality: A systematic review
3 Aug 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service