Back

Patient Attitudes Toward Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Care: A Scoping Review

Hilbers, D.; Nekain, N.; Bates, A.; Nunez, J.-J.

2025-03-17 health informatics
10.1101/2025.03.15.25324029
Show abstract

PURPOSETo synthesize existing literature on patient attitudes toward AI in cancer care and identify knowledge gaps that can inform future research and clinical implementation. DESIGNA scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched for peer-reviewed primary research studies published until February 1, 2025. The Population-Concept-Context framework guided study selection, focusing on adult patients with cancer and their attitudes toward AI. Studies with quantitative or qualitative data were included. Two independent reviewers screened studies, with a third resolving disagreements. Data were synthesized into tabular and narrative summaries. RESULTSOur search yielded 1,240 citations, of which 19 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing 2,114 patients with cancer across 15 countries. Most studies used quantitative methods (n=9) such as questionnaires or surveys. The most studied cancers were prostate, melanoma, breast, and colorectal cancer. While patients with cancer generally supported AI when used as a physician-guided tool, concerns about depersonalization, treatment bias, and data security highlighted challenges in implementation. Trust in AI was shaped by physician endorsement and patient familiarity, with greater trust when AI was physician-guided. Geographic differences were observed, with greater AI acceptance in Asia, while skepticism was more prevalent in North America and Europe. Additionally, patients with metastatic cancer were underrepresented, limiting insights into AI perceptions in this population. CONCLUSIONThis scoping review provides the first synthesis of patient attitudes toward AI across all cancer types and highlights concerns unique to patients with cancer. Clinicians can use these findings to enhance patient acceptance of AI by positioning it as a physician-guided tool and ensuring its integration aligns with patient values and expectations.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 0.7%
13.0%
2
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
based on 36 papers
Top 0.9%
10.2%
3
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
based on 13 papers
Top 0.1%
7.6%
4
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 63%
6.4%
5
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
based on 14 papers
Top 0.3%
5.8%
6
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 4%
5.0%
7
JAMIA Open
based on 35 papers
Top 2%
4.5%
50% of probability mass above
8
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 5%
2.9%
9
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 31%
2.8%
10
JMIR Medical Informatics
based on 16 papers
Top 2%
2.5%
11
International Journal of Medical Informatics
based on 25 papers
Top 3%
2.4%
12
Cancer Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 2%
2.4%
13
DIGITAL HEALTH
based on 11 papers
Top 0.5%
2.3%
14
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
based on 53 papers
Top 4%
2.3%
15
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 10%
1.8%
16
Frontiers in Digital Health
based on 18 papers
Top 2%
1.6%
17
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 72%
1.6%
18
JMIR Formative Research
based on 31 papers
Top 3%
1.6%
19
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
based on 37 papers
Top 4%
1.3%
20
The Lancet Digital Health
based on 25 papers
Top 3%
1.3%
21
Frontiers in Public Health
based on 135 papers
Top 21%
1.2%
22
BMC Health Services Research
based on 43 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
23
Cancers
based on 57 papers
Top 7%
0.8%
24
BMJ Open Quality
based on 15 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
25
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
based on 45 papers
Top 14%
0.7%
26
BMC Medical Research Methodology
based on 41 papers
Top 6%
0.7%