Perceptions of Health Care Professionals on the Integration and Use of AI in Clinical Cancer Care: Interview Study

Clinical Snapshot

Key Findings

• P Value: Not applicable (qualitative study)

• Effect Size: Not applicable (qualitative study)

• Primary Outcome: Healthcare professionals largely accept AI tools and perceive them as beneficial to clinical cancer care practice

• Nnt Or Sensitivity: Key themes: trust as influential factor, operational benefits (reduced workload, time savings), clinical benefits (increased diagnostic reliability, reduced patient recall)

• Confidence Interval: Not applicable (qualitative study)

Clinical Application

Findings suggest feasibility depends on alignment with clinical needs and seamless workflow integration, with minimal disruption reported for some applications Relevant to Australian cancer care settings, particularly given TGA regulation of AI medical devices and Cancer Australia's digital health initiatives. Findings could inform implementation strategies for AI tools in Australian oncology practices Oncology healthcare professionals considering or implementing AI tools in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment planning

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly recognized for its potential to transform cancer care. However, much of the existing evidence of its efficacy comes from controlled settings. There remains a need to complement this knowledge with insights into how AI tools are perceived and used in real-world clinical settings, as well as how their use impacts clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore key factors influencing clinicians' acceptance of AI tools and examine how AI adoption and use impact clinical workflows in cancer care. METHODS: We used purposive sampling for recruiting oncology-related health care professionals and collected data using web-based semistructured interviews to gather their perceptions. Data were thematically analyzed and interpreted through the lenses of sociotechnical systems theory and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. RESULTS: Participants largely accept and perceive AI tools as beneficial to clinical practice. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology constructs were reflected in our data as determinants of intention to adopt AI tools. Trust appears as an influential factor in shaping attitudes toward AI tools. Acceptance is found to both precede AI tool use and to grow following successful integration. The use of AI tools is perceived to yield operational benefits, such as reduced workload and time savings, and clinical benefits, such as increased diagnostic reliability and reduced patient recall. Minimal disruption to clinical workflows following integration of AI tools was reported for some cancer screening applications and organ-at-risk segmentation, whereas greater disruption was anticipated for 3D cancer screening. Although accountability and lack of explainability are highlighted in literature as barriers to AI adoption, participants do not view these as significant obstacles in image-based diagnostic contexts. Additionally, negative impacts, such as overreliance on AI and reduced critical review of AI results, arise in association with the use of AI tools. CONCLUSIONS: Participants perceive AI tools to deliver benefits to clinical cancer care. However, their adoption relies on their alignment with clinical needs and seamless integration into clinical workflows. To encourage clinician acceptance, the identified concerns must be addressed. Future work should focus on training programs, co-design with clinicians, and exploration of mitigation strategies for emerging adverse effects, such as automation bias and potential skill erosion.